|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 27, 2008 4:14:25 GMT
The subject of chaotically varying epitrochoid orbit of the Sun around the barycenter of the solar system was discussed at great length on the 'old board'. One theory (espoused by Fairbridge and others) is that as the barycenter of the solar system moves with the varied positions of the planets and the Sun itself orbits (or is in free fall to) the solar system barycenter. Thus the Sun's orbital and perhaps rotational velocity is altered as it chases the moving solar system barycenter which can be within the Sun or up to 2 solar diameters outside the Sun and move prograde or retrograde. (There is more but that will do for now). The counter argument was that this was not true - barycenters were an unreal construct, therefore the Sun did not have varying orbital or rotational velocity and in any case the planets have negligible effects on the Sun - perhaps a 'tidal pull' of a few millimetres. A counter counter argument was that the Sun's mass may be huge compared to that of the planets, but its share of angular velocity is far more equal with the larger planets...... Recently there have been stories in the science press on discoveries of extra-solar planets around distant stars - apparently about 300 discoveries. Although some are found by occlusion of the star causing a dip in brightness that implies the transit of a planet and now some have even been 'seen' by enhanced telescopes, the press and scientific papers report that the planets were discovered by the 'wobble' of the stars themselves - especially the recent discovery of planets large enough to be failed stars. See: New Scientist "After a slow start in the 1990s, the search for exoplanets, or planets orbiting distant stars, has picked up. Astronomers have now spotted more than 300 exoplanets, mostly by measuring the wobble they induce while orbiting their host stars."www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2008/07/open-project-puts-exoplanet-searches-to.html which leads to several peer reviewed and journal published papers - for example this one: "Les moyens d’observations modernes donnent depuis quelques années la possibilité de s’attaquer à un défi astrophysique : la recherche de planètes extrasolaires. Une approche pour parvenir à déceler la signature de ces objets consiste à mesurer les variations de vitesse radiale de l’étoile se traduisant par un étirement de son spectre (effet Doppler-Fizeau)."www.aero.jussieu.fr/experience/AAA/And again from New Scientist "Star wobble
The star system was first sighted some 20 years ago. A slight shift in light emanates from the larger star but astronomers had previously thought this due to physical processes within the star. But the new analysis indicates that a planet's gravitational pull is causing the star to wobble slightly."www.newscientist.com/article/dn2909-close-twin-star-system-reveals-a-planet.htmlNow - if we assume that stars can wobble - the one closest to Earth can also wobble - and the cause of that wobble is that the Sun is orbiting the barycenter of the solar system as it orbits the barycenter of the galaxy. IF the Sun wobbles due to the larger planets then this could provide the causal links for multiple and chaotically varying cycles of solar (in)activity. Having placed the target in full view - I will now retire to see what is projected at it.
|
|
|
Post by xysatan on Nov 27, 2008 10:19:33 GMT
We have the ability to hear our star wobble these days, look at any solar output and it is varying and cyclical. Not always a constant output. And on a dying star this is to be expected. Look at the outer planets; they are demoted as not a real planet because of their eccentric orbits. They deserve respect, for at one time they did fallow the suns command.
But as time progressed, the sun lost grasp ever so slightly, and they give themselves out to outside influences, including the sun from inside influences. Oh and plus our solar system is moving out from the galactic swirl of the milky way. Us being a old star or maybe a so called modern star? Modern being a star that has planets settled out and have predictable planetary orbits….well? Somewhat, for yet even in the perceived predictable/cyclical there is chaos.
|
|
cacb
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 209
|
Post by cacb on Nov 27, 2008 14:46:39 GMT
The subject of chaotically varying epitrochoid orbit of the Sun around the barycenter of the solar system was discussed at great length on the 'old board'. One theory (espoused by Fairbridge and others) is that as the barycenter of the solar system moves with the varied positions of the planets and the Sun itself orbits (or is in free fall to) the solar system barycenter. Thus the Sun's orbital and perhaps rotational velocity is altered as it chases the moving solar system barycenter which can be within the Sun or up to 2 solar diameters outside the Sun and move prograde or retrograde. (There is more but that will do for now). The counter argument was that this was not true - barycenters were an unreal construct, therefore the Sun did not have varying orbital or rotational velocity and in any case the planets have negligible effects on the Sun - perhaps a 'tidal pull' of a few millimetres. There is no real debate whether the Sun orbits the solar system barycenter, it does so according to basic laws of gravity. The value you mention is slightly incorrect, the Sun can wander up tp ~2.2 solar radii from the solar system barycenter, not 2 solar diameters. The barycenter is there and so is the varing orbital velocity. This velocity is, however, always quite small (~walking pace) . The Sun is in free fall, so it does not feel inertia forces. You are confusing this with tidal effects, which is something else. The tidal effects are also vanishingly small. The wobble of other stars as well as ours is well known, nothing new. As mentioned there is no controversy over whether the sun orbits the barycenter. The debate has been focused on whether the Sun's orbital movements are related to solar activity. It is difficult to find a physical model explaining such a relation.
|
|
|
Post by williams on Nov 27, 2008 16:54:23 GMT
Yes we know well the laws of motion of our Solar System (sun, planets ...) around the centroid. For links against the movement of the sun around the barycenter with the solar cycles are not well known. And so it is unclear whether this movement really has an effect on solar activity. But we can see a link between that movement and Suess solar cycle of 180 years. Because the minimum Suess cycle occurs when the orbital angular momentum of the Sun varies quickly is for each activity period when the sun was low and the temperature is at the minimum Oort, Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton. More info here : la.climatologie.free.fr/soleil/soleil1.htm and in english translate.google.fr/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fla.climatologie.free.fr%2Fsoleil%2Fsoleil1.htm&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&sl=fr&tl=enWe can see a graph with Periods, 1632, 1811 and 1990 when the orbital motion of Sun is retrograde. They are marked by vertical lines dotted. Periods, 1672, 1851 and 2030 that correspond a rapid decrease of orbital motion of the Sun and are indicated by vertical lines to indent Williams
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 27, 2008 17:14:52 GMT
The subject of chaotically varying epitrochoid orbit of the Sun around the barycenter of the solar system was discussed at great length on the 'old board'. One theory (espoused by Fairbridge and others) is that as the barycenter of the solar system moves with the varied positions of the planets and the Sun itself orbits (or is in free fall to) the solar system barycenter. Thus the Sun's orbital and perhaps rotational velocity is altered as it chases the moving solar system barycenter which can be within the Sun or up to 2 solar diameters outside the Sun and move prograde or retrograde. (There is more but that will do for now). The counter argument was that this was not true - barycenters were an unreal construct, therefore the Sun did not have varying orbital or rotational velocity and in any case the planets have negligible effects on the Sun - perhaps a 'tidal pull' of a few millimetres. There is no real debate whether the Sun orbits the solar system barycenter, it does so according to basic laws of gravity. The value you mention is slightly incorrect, the Sun can wander up tp ~2.2 solar radii from the solar system barycenter, not 2 solar diameters. The barycenter is there and so is the varing orbital velocity. This velocity is, however, always quite small (~walking pace) . The Sun is in free fall, so it does not feel inertia forces. You are confusing this with tidal effects, which is something else. The tidal effects are also vanishingly small. The wobble of other stars as well as ours is well known, nothing new. As mentioned there is no controversy over whether the sun orbits the barycenter. The debate has been focused on whether the Sun's orbital movements are related to solar activity. It is difficult to find a physical model explaining such a relation. "The Sun is in free fall, so it does not feel inertia forces." I think that this is the nub of the issue. If I have a body traveling through space in free fall toward a point - and that point changes its position and velocity, I do not see how there cannot be an effect on the body as it changes its velocity to the new position then again to the next as a continually and varied changing free fall velocity. A velocity change implies that there must be an acceleration and an inertia. If the barycenter of the solar system moves from a position outside the surface of the sun forward of its direction of rotation through the surface of the sun to a position to the rear of the center of rotation. you are saying that there will be no inertial effects? The very fact that everyone here has agreed to a wobble in stars orbiting planets means that a force was applied that altered the velocity of the stars involved. Just because they are in free fall does not mean they have no mass.
|
|
|
Post by vukcevic on Nov 27, 2008 17:43:55 GMT
Some 20 years ago, Jane Feynman one of the top NASA solar scientists from JPL, Pasadena, spoke of solar dynamo operating in chaotic manner around times of grand minima. More recently, Ivanka Charvatova from institute of Geophysics, Prague, published most recent version of her detailed work relating to the solar inertial motion and motion of the Sun around the centre of mass of the Solar System, due to variable positions of the giant planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. www.billhowell.ca/Charvatova%20solar%20inertial%20motion%20&%20activity/Charvatova,%20Hejda%20Aug08%20-%20A%20possible%20role%20of%20the%20solar%20inertial%20motion%20in%20climatic%20changes.pdf Many authors on this subject have observed correlation between solar periodicity and planetary movements but a reasonable mathematical interpretation for periodicity or amplitude first time appeared in equations in the article “ Evidence of a multi-resonant system within solar periodic activity”: xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdfAuthors dealing with gravitational causes have failed to take into account crucial point relating to the Hale cycle i.e. flip of global magnetic field at maxima and sunspot polarity change at minima. These are magnetic events; they can be only a consequence of either electric, magnetic or combined causes and not gravity through its direct or indirect effects. I suggest that solar activity (in absence of planets) would be a random event (most likely at level approaching maxima 150-200), but it is modulated via a feedback by interaction between heliospheric current and planetary magnetospheres. Since Maunder type minima have been reoccurring irregularly for millennia, than they cannot be simply explained by planetary factors alone. External factors (interstellar magnetic field and cosmic rays) affecting heliospheric current by greatly distorting heliosphere, should not be ignored since they may play decisive role in shutting down sunspot activity for prolonged periods of time. see latest contribution at Maunder and related matters solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=64&page=5
|
|
cacb
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 209
|
Post by cacb on Nov 27, 2008 21:49:05 GMT
Place an accelerometer on it and tell us what it reads (other than a constant value) ;D Or place the accelerometer on a spaceship on an interplanetary journey (no rocket firings allowed after an initial boost). It will be subject to varying gravity from the Sun, Jupiter and other planets, but will always be in free fall. Maybe it is more correct to say that inertial effects are perfectly balanced by gravity. Gravity. It would be applied even if we didn't agree Who said they have no mass?
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Nov 27, 2008 23:22:01 GMT
There is a neglected and possibly important barycentric effect, which is the vertical component. Ray Tomes explains how the core of the sun is pulled upwards and downwards over a ~11.86 year cycle as Jupiter orbits. It is a quantum relativistic effect and Ray has calculated that over the course of ~6 years, the matter and energy at the sun's core is pulled several kilometers. He proposes that this will cause pressure waves which manifest as the varying north and south hemisphere proponderance of sunspots over a longer cycle involving the motion of several of the Jovian planets.
He points out that it is more likely that it is this vertical componebt (due to the suns rotational axis being offset ~7 degrees from the plane of the planets) that is the cause of the modulation of the solar cycle than the angular position of the planets in their orbits, because any effects would be cancelled over the course of a solar day (around 27 days).
However, because the planets all lie in roughly the same plane, there is a coincidental correlation between the maxima and minima of declination, and the times of conjunction of planets. This has masked the vertical components possible importance and it is a neglected field of study.
Vukovic, spot on with the Charvatova reference, I posted links to her work on the old board several times.
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Nov 28, 2008 0:03:24 GMT
About 30 years ago a scientist went about studying the solar activity of other stars expecting to see our star behave the same way all the others do. What he found was the total opposite. Some stars behaved similar to ours others went from being very quiet to very active and back in only 3 or 4 years and some were either constantly active or inactive. This lead him to believe the activity of a star is controlled by external forces. Sorry i do not have a link for this study but if i find it i will post it.
In regards Jupiter and its effects on the sun, i have read there are two bodies in the solar system that release more energy than what they receive one is obviously the sun but the second is Jupiter. If this is true could it be that gravity is not the only force being applied to the sun. As the sun moves around the center of mass it travels through its own magnetic field but when Jupiter is close could this also effect the sun's behaviour?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 3, 2015 3:12:48 GMT
The subject of chaotically varying epitrochoid orbit of the Sun around the barycenter of the solar system was discussed at great length on the 'old board'. One theory (espoused by Fairbridge and others) is that as the barycenter of the solar system moves with the varied positions of the planets and the Sun itself orbits (or is in free fall to) the solar system barycenter. Thus the Sun's orbital and perhaps rotational velocity is altered as it chases the moving solar system barycenter which can be within the Sun or up to 2 solar diameters outside the Sun and move prograde or retrograde. (There is more but that will do for now). The counter argument was that this was not true - barycenters were an unreal construct, therefore the Sun did not have varying orbital or rotational velocity and in any case the planets have negligible effects on the Sun - perhaps a 'tidal pull' of a few millimetres. There is no real debate whether the Sun orbits the solar system barycenter, it does so according to basic laws of gravity. The value you mention is slightly incorrect, the Sun can wander up tp ~2.2 solar radii from the solar system barycenter, not 2 solar diameters. The barycenter is there and so is the varing orbital velocity. This velocity is, however, always quite small (~walking pace) . The Sun is in free fall, so it does not feel inertia forces. You are confusing this with tidal effects, which is something else. The tidal effects are also vanishingly small. The wobble of other stars as well as ours is well known, nothing new. As mentioned there is no controversy over whether the sun orbits the barycenter. The debate has been focused on whether the Sun's orbital movements are related to solar activity. It is difficult to find a physical model explaining such a relation. Very curiously almost 7 years later, this poster called Nautonnier is still claiming on this forum that astronomers and people like Leif Svalgaard do not realise the Sun wobbles. What is more, even though I put a massive personal effort into attempting to understand what he was talking about, I made absolutely no progress in that mission. I only just found this thread, so it sheds quite a bit more light on his behaviour, but I still have no idea what is motivating him to produce such strange responses over such a very large number of years.
|
|