“Barycentric” influence of the planets on the sun is just statistically insignificant, and a previous paper that claims to find a signal in isotopic records is proven to be nothing more than a statistical artifact.
In 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics published a statistical study of the isotopic records of solar activity, in which Abreu et al. claimed that there is evidence of planetary influence on solar activity. A&A is publishing a new analysis of these isotopic data by Cameron and Schüssler. It corrects technical errors in the statistical tests performed by Abreu et al.
They find no evidence of any planetary effect on solar activity.
In a new paper published in A&A, R. Cameron and M. Schüssler, however, identify subtle technical errors in the statistical tests performed by Abreu et al. Correcting these errors reduces the statistical significance by many orders of magnitude to values consistent with a pure chance coincidence. The quasi-periods in the isotope data therefore provide no evidence that there is any planetary effect on solar activity.
Source: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-evidence-planetary-solar.html#nwlt
The paper (h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard)
No evidence for planetary influence on solar activity
R. H. Cameron and M. Schüssler
Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Max-Planck-Str. 2, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany e-mail: [cameron;schuessler]@mps.mpg.de
Received 16 April 2013 / Accepted 24 July 2013
ABSTRACT
Context. Recently, Abreu et al. (2012, A&A. 548, A88) proposed a long-term modulation of solar activity through tidal effects exerted by the planets. This claim is based upon a comparison of (pseudo-)periodicities derived from records of cosmogenic isotopes with those arising from planetary torques on an ellipsoidally deformed Sun.
Aims. We examined the statistical significance of the reported similarity of the periods.
Methods. The tests carried out by Abreu et al. were repeated with artificial records of solar activity in the form of white or red noise. The tests were corrected for errors in the noise definition as well as in the apodisation and filtering of the random series.
Results. The corrected tests provide probabilities for chance coincidence that are higher than those claimed by Abreu et al. by about 3 and 8 orders of magnitude for white and red noise, respectively. For an unbiased choice of the width of the frequency bins used for the test (a constant multiple of the frequency resolution) the probabilities increase by another two orders of magnitude to 7.5% for red noise and 22% for white noise.
Conclusions. The apparent agreement between the periodicities in records of cosmogenic isotopes as proxies for solar activity and planetary torques is statistically insignificant. There is no evidence for a planetary influence on solar activity.
…
Concluding remarks
The statistical test proposed by Abreu et al. (2012), a comparison of the coincidences of spectral peaks from time series of planetary torques and cosmogenic isotopes (taken as a proxy for solar activity in the past) with red and white noise, is logically unable to substantiate a causal relation between solar activity and planetary orbits. Furthermore, the execution of the test contains severe technical errors in the generation and in the treatment of the random series. Correction of these errors and removal of the bias introduced by the tayloring of the spectral windows a posteriori leads to probabilities for period coincidences by chance of 22% for red noise and 7.5% for white noise. The coincidences reported in Abreu et al. (2012) are therefore consistent with both white and red noise.
Owing to our lack of understanding of the solar dynamo mechanism, red or white noise are only one of many possible representations of its variability in the period range between 40 and 600 years in the absence of external effects. This is why the test of A2012 is logically incapable of providing statistical evidence in favour of a planetary influence. Alternatively one could consider the probability that a planetary system selected randomly from the set of all possible solar systems would have periods matching those in the cosmogenic records. In the absence of a quantitative understanding of the statistical properties of the set of possible solar systems to draw from, the comparison could again, at best, rule out a particular model of the probability distribution of planetary systems. Here we have shown that the test in A2012 does not exclude that the peaks in the range from 40 to 600 years in the planetary forcing are drawn from a distribution of red or white noise.
We conclude that the data considered by A2012 do not pro- vide statistically significant evidence for an effect of the planets on solar activity.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/aa21713-13-No-Planetary-Solar-Act.pdf
From wbrozek on September 8, 2013 at 2:08 pm:
Found it. Square root got screwed up and I missed it.
v^2 = 2.292*10^6
v = 1514. km/sec
Oh crud, I screwed up the first time at the end as well. Idiot calculator program with idiot display, cranking through again I get a x10¹, I’m off a decimal point. Should have been 23.83 days.
Ah heck, I should convert the radius to meters to match, works nicer.
r = Mercury orbital distance, 57,910,000 km
= 5.791*10^10m
v^2 = (6.674*10^-11 N m^2 kg^-2) * 1.989*10^30 kg / (5.791*10^10 m)
v^2 = 2.292×10⁹
v = 4.788×10⁴ m/sec
v = 4.788*10¹ km/sec = 47.88 km/sec
2*pi*r = circumference (aka one orbit, revolution)
v / (2*pi*r) = frequency
47.88 km/sec / (2 * 3.14159 * 57,910,000 km)
= 1.316 * 10^-7 rev/sec
Invert for orbital period:
7.600 X 10^6 sec/rev * (1min/60sec) * (1hr/60min) * (1day/24/hr)
=87.96 days
Wikipedia says Mercury’s orbital period is “about 88 Earth days” so now we’re in general agreement.
Good catch, thanks.
(Note to self: Do math when not surrounded by needy cats.)
“… There is no evidence for a planetary influence on solar activity.”
More correct would be to say that “this paper provides no evidence for a planetary influence on solar activity.”
For what it’s worth, characteristic perturbations in the otherwise smooth rate of change in the angular momentum of the Sun, driven by planetary motion, appear to correspond with the known Grand Solar Minima such as the Wolf, Spörer, Maunder, and Dalton, as well as the one we’re entering now.
http://www.landscheidt.info/
Is there a mechanism suggested? No.
Do we know enough about the Sun and its cycles to eliminate the possibility of such an influence? Also no.
John Whitman says:
September 8, 2013 at 2:27 pm
“No evidence for planetary influence on solar activity” by R. H. Cameron and M. Schüssler published in A&A
CONCLUDING REMARKS
“Owing to our lack of understanding of the solar dynamo mechanism…
They’re not in a strong position to be proving negatives.
It appears to be relatively weak conclusion.
I think that dueling papers on this subject will increase.
Correct. I know which side’s papers will have more worthwhile observational information in them though. Useing clumsy statistical scatterguns to obliterate signals doesn’t tell anyone anything at all. Except something about the motivation of the authors perhaps.
lgl says:
September 8, 2013 at 3:17 pm
That’s not a way at all. The planets only orbit the mass inside their orbit so placing an object at 200 AU is meaningless.
(Sigh), so Jupiter does not orbit the SSBC whose location is not determined by masses inside the orbit of Jupiter…This ‘inside their orbit’ bit is nonsense.
I feel it is worth pointing out that whether anyone agrees with Leif or not about whatever else he may say, he was the first one to point out the inverse-square behavior of gravity in the orbit/center-of-mass discussions.
Gravity is not a force, modeling it as such leads to nonsensical conclusions.
Without a massive body nearby an object will follow the shortest trajectory available through spacetime, which is approximated closely enough by a straight line for our purposes.
In the presence of a massive body the shortest trajectory available is no longer what we would usually consider a straight line, and as Feynman so elegantly explained; this deviation can be more easily understood with a bit of geometry.
If we start by measuring the circumference of a circle around said massive body and calculate what the radius of that circle would be, we can then measure the actual radius (in this hypothetical of course, it is not quite so simple in the real world) and upon doing so we would find that the measured radius is greater than we expected.
If you drew a circle around the planet that intersected your keyboard, for example, you would then discover that the planet is… shall we say… deeper than it would be if Euclid was in charge.
The deviation due to that excess radius, plotted accordingly, shows up as the aforementioned inverse-square law.
When you try to work out orbits on a flat piece of paper by simply drawing lines across it and adding up masses you will not come to the right answers, if you could we would not remember Einstein as having contributed much to physics, would we?
So, long story short, the curvature in the vicinity of the Earth is sufficient for the Moon to remain in orbit at a given distance, the local curvature due to Jupiter is overwhelmed by that from the Sun, yet the Earth does not lose the Moon to either body.
There are locations where the curvature is approximately equal, we call them Lagrange points, but there are only a few solutions involving bodies of nearly equal masses where the L1 point would also be the Barycenter of a system, the simplest case being a spherical body held together by gravity that is not rotating (as rotation deforms the region where the pull of the mass would be balanced into a disc or ring, with a Kerr metric being a maximal solution) which could be approximated by a shell of masses at a given distance from the central point, giving effectively zero net force felt at that location.
well, I read with patience [despite the headache] and I agree with the authors,
I guess Sun Loses 346 10 ^ 9 kg / day.
All very strange. Nothing is constant so the center of mass does not vary periodically with time. If vary.
[i]We Conclude que Considered by the date of the A2012 not provide statistically Significant evidence for an effect of the planets on solar activity.[/i]
rgbatduke says:
“It is therefore implausible that Jupiter and/or Saturn would have a discernible influence on things like Earth’s climate, at least on the basis of known physics, even before looking for raw correlations in one’s haste to commit post hoc ergo propter hoc.”
By making the correlations first, you’ll have a clearer idea of what the physics can, and cannot be. Starting with a proposed mechanism is a mistake, it limits the search to only bodies relevant to that mechanism, and will miss physical distributions of the bodies that are important for other mechanisms. I’ll give you a key example of what I have found, and regularly make deterministic long range weather forecasts from:
Given the configuration: Jupiter opposite Uranus, both square to Saturn, at any point that the BISECTOR of Earth and Venus is on the Saturn line on EITHER side of the Sun, higher solar activity and warmer weather in most temperate regions due to a positive Arctic Oscillation will commence. At any point that the BISECTOR of Earth and Venus is on the Jupiter-Uranus line on EITHER side of the Sun, solar activity slows and the AO becomes negative. This means the jet stream moves southwards and the weather for the mid-upper latitudes cools, except places where the now more meridional jet causes blocking.
This is the key to forecasting the main deviations from normals through the year. With Saturn opposite Uranus, both square to Jupiter, the “cold” line is towards Jupiter.
© ULRIC ALEXANDER LYONS 2013
The latter example is applicable for this year, and is why it was straightforward that March was very cold, July would be hot (for at least UK/Europe), it would cool mid August, be warm late November, and be very cold Jan+Feb 2014. See what you think the physics may be, it works all the way back through CET just fine.
The sun’s behavior can not be explained,let alone predicted, in terms of classical Newtonian physics that disregard electrodynamic and magnetic interactions with its surroundings.
Jupiter opposite Uranus, both square to Saturn is essentially a double hot signal, and marks some of the hottest clusters of years in the last 100yrs; 2003-06, 1974-76, 1947-49, 1934-35.
The positional logic of the Superior Planets that I have observed expresses how (excuse the upper case):
JUPITER OPPOSITE NEPTUNE IS COLD
JUPITER SQUARE TO NEPTUNE IS HOT
SATURN OPPOSITE URANUS IS COLD
SATURN SQUARE TO URANUS IS HOT
JUPITER OPPOSITE URANUS IS HOT
JUPITER SQUARE TO URANUS IS COLD
SATURN OPPOSITE NEPTUNE IS HOT
SATURN SQUARE TO NEPTUNE IS COLD
THUS SATURN OPPOSITE URANUS, SQUARE TO
JUPITER OPPOSITE NEPTUNE IS FOUR TIMES COLD.
BY INTERCHANGING URANUS AND NEPTUNE
IT BECOMES FOUR TIMES HOT.
© ULRIC ALEXANDER LYONS 2013
appendix:
(HELIOCENTRIC CONJUNCTIONS)
JUPITER CONJUNCT NEPTUNE IS HOT
JUPITER CONJUNCT URANUS IS COLD
SATURN CONJUNCT URANUS IS HOT
SATURN CONJUNCT NEPTUNE IS COLD
© ULRIC ALEXANDER LYONS 2013
Ok, just to put this into terms more people can understand.
At the distances we’re talking about here, Jupiter’s gravity probably has less of an effect than the ISS has on the Earth… heck, you might have more of a gravitational influence on the Earth than Jupiter does…
I’m figuring the pull from Jupiter felt here is probably somewhere between that from a house and that from a bowling ball but I’m tired and not feeling like cranking out the full math just to have it overlooked anyways.
I can accept that the wobble induced by the rest of the mass of the solar system (which is mostly Jupiter anyways) would distort the evolution of field lines as they migrate through the Sun, I would indeed need very strong evidence to find the idea that it has no influence reasonable, and I would be surprised to learn that a sufficiently powerful simulation of a star with and without jovians showed no variation at all.
Similarly you could certainly calculate the influence the mass of Jupiter has on you or I… assuming you felt like adding enough digits after the zero and ignoring things like passing cars or your waterbed upstairs.
Going so far as to attribute major regime changes in solar behavior to the orientation of insignificant lumps of dusty gas like Saturn and Uranus though?
That is a bit much to swallow.
The (solar) cycle is likely driven by the meridional circulation which in turn is driven by gravity
No it isn’t. Meridional circulation was discredited last summer
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/weak-solar-convection-approximately-100-times-slower-than-scientists-had-previously-projected/
everybody read this ? Leif says :
Plasmas cannot sustain electric fields [the charges short out immediately].
now look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_%28plasma%29
he’d wouldn’t pass his undergrad plasma module if he’s bases his attempt at understanding on his assertion.
Plasma has been known to form double layers and electric fields since the 1920s.
I know you like the frozen magnetic fields concept that alfven invented. He then spent the rest of his life saying this concept is wrong. Its the electric part of electromagnetic which Chapman and you are vehemently opposed to. ( and everyone here knows it )
From: http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/ssbarycenter.html
All the planets have this effect on the Sun: http://www.orbitsimulator.com/BA/sbc4.GIF
Everything but Jupiter: http://www.orbitsimulator.com/BA/sbc5.GIF
Minus Jupiter and Saturn: http://www.orbitsimulator.com/BA/sbc6.GIF
Getting rid of Neptune too leaves: http://www.orbitsimulator.com/BA/sbc7.GIF
Zooming in on the Uranus influenced path: http://www.orbitsimulator.com/BA/sbc8.GIF
Getting rid of everything but smaller debris (Earth, Venus, Mars, Mercury, etc) gives this: http://www.orbitsimulator.com/BA/sbc10.GIF
Note the scales there, 1.3 million km, 110k km, <1000 km, the idea that there is significance to be found in the tug that might result from a chance alignment of debris–which again, everything smaller than Jupiter can be filed under "debris" if we're being honest–if we're being charitable then Saturn almost rates a mention, while Jupiter alone swings the Sun through most of a million km by itself, and yet statistically we can't identify a signal resulting from it on these records?
Kind of an interesting discussion on this. “In 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics published a statistical study of the isotopic records of solar activity, in which Abreu et al. claimed that there is evidence of planetary influence on solar activity. ”
The paper seems to have done a fairly good job in pointing out problems with the isotopic records of solar activity. However, it is also not true that the paper proves there is no evidence that solar activity is regulated by movement around the barycenter of the solar system. The study addressed only that evidence brought forth from Abreu et al.
Those who have pointed to a link between changes in solar orbit around the barycenter and changes in climate did successfully predict the reduced activity. This may be a coincident. The failure of Abreu et al may also simply be due to the evidence they used and the methodology. A better proof of the influence of solar movement and the barycenter may be found or the theory may be incorrect.
On a slightly different subject that was raised about what we orbit around. The earth does in fact orbit around a point that is like a barycenter of the solar system for the earth. But this is not the same “barycenter” that the sun rotates around. Basically, for objects widely distributed in orbit, the mathematical point or “barycenter” that the object is in orbit around is relative to it’s position with respect to other objects that exert a gravitational pull. Of course, since the sun holds most of the mass of the solar system, the barycenter for the earth is close to the center of mass of the sun.
We’ve posted a model of solar activity for the last thousand and next hundred years on the talkshop:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/r-j-salvador-planetary-model-of-1000-yrs-solar-variation-plus-100yr-prediction/
It is based on four planetary based periods, and matches the 14C record quite well. Be sure to read the caveats regarding the forecast.
meemoe_uk says:
September 8, 2013 at 7:53 pm
Meridional circulation was discredited last summer
No, you were confused by a misleading abstract. Here is [from that thread] an explanation:
——-
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 9, 2012 at 11:13 am
An example on how a poorly written abstract can be misleading and confusing:
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 07:05:27 -0700
From: Leif Svalgaard lsvalgaard@gmail.com
To: Tom Duvall duvall@sun.stanford.edu
Tom, in the paper you et al. write [in the abstract]:
“suggesting that the Sun may be a much faster rotator than previously thought”
I find no reference to that in the text, and I find the statement puzzling. ‘Much faster rotator’ means what? Literally read, it might mean that the sun rotates much faster than thought. How much is ‘much’? does the sun rotate twice as fast as 25 days or ten times as fast or what.
Tom Duvall duvall@sun.stanford.edu
to: lsvalgaard@gmail.com
date: Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Leif, My mistake. The statement should have been worded differently. See Shravan’s answer below.
Tom
Tom Duvall duvall@sun.stanford.edu wrote:
Shravan, Do you have an answer to the question? I would enjoy seeing it also.
Tom
Date:Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:18:54 -0400
From:Shravan Hanasoge
To: Tom Duvall
Certainly – I now realize it’s a bit of a confusing statement because it’s a slightly technical concept. The “rapidity” of solar rotation is defined in our context through the Rossby number: the ratio of convective velocity to the speed of rotation. It is largely thought that the Sun, in the context of Rossby number, is a slow rotator, i.e. that Coriolis forces play a very weak role in influencing convective motions. (which is actually true in the case of granulation; see also Miesch 2005, living reviews). However our results show that the convective motions are substantially weaker than previously thought, which means the Rossby number is very low and convection therefore is strongly influenced by rotation and Coriolis forces (much more so than previously thought).
In that sense, the Sun is “fast rotator”.
Shravan
——-
This had nothing to do with the meridional circulation.
Here is a post on the meridional circulation [which is alive and well]:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/29/a-new-understanding-of-the-solar-dynamo-published/
Plasma has been known to form double layers and electric fields since the 1920s.
Double layers occur at the boundary between plasma regions with different plasma properties. A double layer prevents further charge separation from occurring and further build-up of the electric field. The electric field is confined to the thin sheet separating the two plasma regions. Electric fields also occur in magnetic reconnection events, but again are confined to thin sheets or filaments. In a sense the double layers are what prevent large-scale electric fields. The critical parameter is the so-called Debye length. Below that length you can have electric fields, above several Debye-length you cannot.
I know you like the frozen magnetic fields concept that alfven invented.
It is precisely that frozen-in concept that allows the solar wind we observe streaming past the Earth to carry the Sun’s magnetic field out into space, and to ensure that magnetic energy can be transferred to the Earth via geomagnetic storms. Without that frozen-in magnetic field that would not happen.
Its the electric part of electromagnetic which Chapman and you are vehemently opposed to.
Nobody is opposed to those things; they are important for the various instabilities and energy transfers in space plasma [as I was one of the co-discovers of]
Look these clowns who can’t even prosecute functional fundamentals much less proper weightings aren’t going to make ordered mathematical predictive capacity vanish. The orbits of the gas giants and more medium size planets, upon aligning, form gravity force alignment. The sun’s internals, are gas.
“Gravity dont uhfeckt mass if’n yew look real close” like that twit Gavin Schmidt said? (He didn’t say it about gravity he said “If’n yew look REEEELe clowSE it kinda COULD be thair!” about the hotspot that MUST accompany magic gais hype if it had ever been real. If the atmosphere was warming there must by definition be a warm spot near the atmosphere’s lower ‘ceiling’ and of course that alone proves the whole magic gas scam utterly untruthful.
“Gravity don’t ‘feckt it if’n yew dew thuh mayuth raight! Ya’W.”
Something that has the ring of reality based convesation to it sounds like “the internal composition of the sun being gravitationally mobile, the combined weights of several large planets swinging into alighnment, affect the gravitational response to denser, hence more gravitationally sensitive regions within the sun. When large planets swing past the sun, having had the geometry of their combined movement, perform a ‘herding’ or ‘corralling’ effect: all swinging in at speeds which augment the combined process, of affecting the sun, rather than coming together and separating more quickly, as sometimes occurs between certain combinations of bodies in the solar system – the effects are more pronounced, and these forces are extremely simple to know due to the prodigious quantity of space-derived data sent from research & investigation probes…”
If someone said something like that to me I’d perk up a dash and say “No shit? You got the numbers for that I can look at, because I know the effects of gravity are EXTREMELY predictable and well known,
and I know the effects of mass and field force growth and attenuation are the stuff of sophomore science, so I firmly believe you might put together mass agglomerations that affect the sun itself in some way, even if obliquely.”
And indeed that person WOULD have the numbers and would amaze, and mesmerize me, by explaining over twenty minutes, that he could predict the temperature of the earth going both forward, and backward. And he’d do it from some place I know American politics and American media can’t lie, cheat, steal, obfuscate, scam and lie about the know scientific realities: Italy.
This man’s an Italian. Some hick tells you he proved blah, blahBLAH, you say to him, two words:
Nicola Scaffeta.
And screw his illiterate innumerate “I haz phd in climit” clown. You can tell em that too because when they see Nicola say at aboout twenty minutes, “this….BLacK…LINE.”……. and the silence hangs like somebody farted real loud –
you judge
for your self.
You tell me,
he doesn’t know wtf he just said.
Because I’ll put whoever made that ludicrous claim to task just on this Italian’s word and I assure you he’s no American or English “climatologist.”
He’s an actual no bullshit “check my work” – that’s called a RESPECTABLE
math/physics professional.
“Empirical evidences for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications.”
iframe=true&width=80%25&height=80%25
You need not fear the ignorant slugs who think looking into a bore hole with a hockey stick generator means magic gas is boiling out bat’s eyes at night from infrared Backerds-isms (Wherever perfesser Bore Hole Backerd is hiding, I know he’s proud of what he’s done for science. Ya’W)
All you have to do is remember there are a few scientists in the world whose work hasn’t been perverted into “act alarmed or you don’t work”.
Nicola Scaffeta. I advise ya to watch it all, ok? Sorry, sorry, sorry to do that to ya but you need to see, this guy’s not bullshootin. He speaks Italian first and his English is bad. For the word “Oscillations” he says, “Eye-soleh-shun” and then when he uses the word, ‘INDUCED” he latinizes it – i mean – look at what he’s doing here, talking physics in another language in SEVERAL sciences –
when he says INDUCED, he says ” In-DEW-said” and past that, you can see what he’s saying.
I guarantee your a&& you’re gonna understand what he’s saying when he shows you “this…BLaCK…LINE.” You WILL understand just wtf he meant when he says that, and the whole room stops breathing for about six beats.
Toward the end Nicola uses the word “heliosphere” or “helio-something” and he latinizes purely saying “AY-Lee-yOhs-phere” so don’t confuse his lack of English mastery with being like an American Scientist: aka a CROOK.
They didn’t have their entire law enforcement system dared to try to prosecute a bunch of climate scam criminals on Al Gore’s word.
Enjoy folks and seriously: this Nicola guy he’s the real effin deal. WATCH the 28 MINUTES.
YOU WILL NOT WANT YOUR HALF HOUR BACK I guarantee you that, my friend. I PROMISE you that.
Bet
meemoe_uk says:
September 8, 2013 at 7:53 pm
Its the electric part of electromagnetic which Chapman and you are vehemently opposed to.
Perhaps a short historical note might set you straight:
In the 1960s it was widely debated whether the magnetosphere was ‘open’ or ‘closed’. The Chapman view [going back to 1932] was that the magnetosphere was ‘closed’ and formed a ‘bubble’ in the solar streams. The Alfven and, before him, Birkeland view was that the magnetosphere was ‘open’, i.e. that the solar wind could get access to the Earth via the magnetic field lines extending into the solar wind. Dungey had suggested that in such an ‘open’ configuration, the magnetic field of the Earth and the solar wind would connect and that that would explain how the solar wind got access and how energy was transferred [via the electric field in reconnection] from the wind to the magnetosphere, where it could be released in forms of aurorae and geomagnetic storms.
In the 1967-1968 time frame it was discovered [by Arnold and Fairfield] that when the solar wind magnetic field turned south, geomagnetic activity would pick up and that [by me] when the solar wind was pointing east or west [the most common case], the geomagnetic field in the polar caps of the Earth would vary in a characteristic way. Those observations proved that the magnetosphere was ‘open’ and that Alfven and Birkeland had been correct, and that reconnection was an important astrophysical phenomenon. Note that my discovery of the Svalgaard-Mansurov effect] was very instrumental in this [as I pointed out in a 1968 report], so perhaps you could from now on stop your Chapman nonsense.
Henry Clark says:
September 8, 2013 at 2:31 pm
The data is “part upside-down relative to how it should be”? My friend, data is just data. It is the way it is, not the way either you or I think it “should be”.
w.
I think that’s what you call an “owning”, and maybe this is just me, I think it is probably due to way I learned about physics, but seeing a distinction made between electric and magnetic is strange, as it is just a matter of the right reference frame to moot any such difference entirely.
Max™ says:
September 9, 2013 at 2:38 am
I think that’s what you call an “owning”, and maybe this is just me, I think it is probably due to way I learned about physics, but seeing a distinction made between electric and magnetic is strange, as it is just a matter of the right reference frame to moot any such difference entirely.
To a point only: You can always find a reference frame to make an electric field go away, but you cannot find a frame to make a magnetic field go away. In other words: an electric field depends on the observer’s reference frame, but a magnetic field does not.
thanks for the history lesson validating your work magnetic fields in space. But I haven’t questioned your understanding there.
The points I made wrt the solar meridional circulation and electric double layers in plasma, stand.
Until you accept that the key role of electricity in space, e.g. space plasma regularly forms large, sustained electric double layers and associated electric fields, then I have to ascribe your erroneous stance to ‘Chapman nonsense’ and a general overly conservative stance on 20th century models.
You can always find a reference frame to make an electric field go away,
Which frame of reference sets the electric field of a static, isolated charge to zero?
( if you allow accelerating frames then all magnetic fields can be zeroed too. )
Thinking about all this planetary mechanics and its possible influence on the sun, got me to thinking. It would seem that our sun does not belong to one of the spiral arms of our galaxy, but is a rogue doing laps. Thus it is travelling at a speed of some commensurate value compared to the rotation of our galaxy. That would mean that our planetary system is being dragged by the sun, thus the planets are in eliptical spiral orbits, this would make the speed of the planets some what more than we calculate. The sun dragging all the debris and planets after it must have an effect, that has been ignored. Tidal in nature one would expect from gravity, what other forces are at work seem to be a mystery but the amazing mathematical correlations of our solar system seem to point more to the harmony of the spheres than modern celestial mechanics.
The electron rest frame?
http://calgary.rasc.ca/howfast.htm
We are moving around 719,000 km/hr (447,000 m/hr) around the Milky Way (roughly towards Vega if you’re curious, though that is just a coincidence) but that motion is in a different plane than the planets orbit in: http://calgary.rasc.ca/images/solar_system_from_galactic_centre.gif
Now, there are stars of the right age following trajectories which would allow the sun to have been formed in the same nursery cloud in this galaxy with a cluster of others, there is no reason whatsoever to think it is not native.