|
Post by Andrew on Jun 3, 2015 17:17:05 GMT
Nautonnier is still claiming NASA Lief and astronomers are saying there is no Solar wobble - even though i provided good evidence that was an incorrect belief. Nautonnier has told us he was banned from web sites because of the conversations he had with astro people about this topic where he claimed there should be a wobble and they said (according to him) there would be no wobble. He just told me for the third time I was claiming there would be no solar wobble! Since it is perfectly clear to me you do know what i am talking about why not take it up with him? Perhaps he will listen to you? Andrew I don't see NASA or Leif being mentioned in your evidence. Nautonnier does use the term astronomers in an anonymous sense. Actually it does sound like something that would come from Astronomer Dr. James Hansen. But whats with the deal of you trumping up the charges? Is this so you can make a case out of nothing? Obviously there are a lot of stupid scientists around that say a lot of stupid things. Heck here are some examples: 1. "As I recall, the tide on the Sun created by the barycenter is about 10cm high! less than 1cm" Andrew, the barycenter does not create the tides!! 2." I noticed Leif Svalgaard said something like 'if a pea was placed sufficiently far from the Sun it would have a greater impact upon the SS barycenter than Jupiter has, and surely nobody would argue the pea could cause the planets to significantly alter their orbits?'" So what the heck does a pea have to do with anything? What is your point and why is Leif making this example? Then you compound the stupidity with: 3. "The infinitely distant pea is not a good example because the pea would be outside the known universe and surely incapable of being in an orbit around a relatively tiny object like the Sun." If its a bad example why did you use it? Then, 4. "The pea idea is only pointing out the stupidity of solar system barycentric planetary orbits." Andrew, what point are trying to make here? Whats stupid about the notion that planets orbit the barycenter. Planets orbit due to gravitational forces, the barycenter is the central point of the sum of the gravitational forces. Then, 5. "If you consider an earth sized object a few light years out then the idea becomes more practical. The object would create a very large change in the barycenter while changing nothing that mattered" Dang Andrew the main thrust of the discussion is the sum of the effects of Jupiter on the sun and earth. So you think its a smart idea to dispute it with an object less than one three hundreths the mass of Jupiter that is about 40,000 times further away. Have you lost your mind completely!!! then, 6. "The first thing to realise is that the Sun will never be the centre of a planetary orbit" Andrew why is this the first thing to realize? And why never? then, 7. "Theo, I already noticed you are one of the "barycentric folk"." Andrew you mean Astromet believes in the existence of a solar wobble? What is the point here? 8. "Nautonnier you are horribly muddled up. I gave you a link showing NASA saying the Sun wobbles due to the influence of jupiter, and at this point in time i have no reason at all to believe Svalgaard disputes NASA" Hmmm, Andrew at first above you claimed that Nautonnier was claiming (without evidence) that both NASA and Svalgard were disputing a solar wobble. Now you have switched to Nautonnier claiming Svalgaard disputes NASA, proving beyond any reasonable doubt you are making it all up. then, 9. "My maths only deals with the absurdity of planets orbiting a solar system barycenter. My maths says nothing at all about the Sun not being being influenced by the other planets. My maths says nothing at all about the Sun orbiting the solar system barycenter." Your maths prove absurdity? Explain the logic behind this nonsense! And DANG! ANDREW! This is only one guy on one topic in one day! Imagine the range of stupidity of scientists out there over the alleged 7 years!! . . . .and you dispute any range of stupidity at all!!! I dont have to provide evidence again for everything i say when there are threads here anybody can read for themselves. When you show me you are capable of acting in good faith then i will make an effort for you but meanwhile if you know how to read i suggest you do that instead of expecting me to be your mummy.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 3, 2015 17:48:39 GMT
Andrew I don't see NASA or Leif being mentioned in your evidence. Nautonnier does use the term astronomers in an anonymous sense. Actually it does sound like something that would come from Astronomer Dr. James Hansen. But whats with the deal of you trumping up the charges? Is this so you can make a case out of nothing? Obviously there are a lot of stupid scientists around that say a lot of stupid things. Heck here are some examples: 1. "As I recall, the tide on the Sun created by the barycenter is about 10cm high! less than 1cm" Andrew, the barycenter does not create the tides!! 2." I noticed Leif Svalgaard said something like 'if a pea was placed sufficiently far from the Sun it would have a greater impact upon the SS barycenter than Jupiter has, and surely nobody would argue the pea could cause the planets to significantly alter their orbits?'" So what the heck does a pea have to do with anything? What is your point and why is Leif making this example? Then you compound the stupidity with: 3. "The infinitely distant pea is not a good example because the pea would be outside the known universe and surely incapable of being in an orbit around a relatively tiny object like the Sun." If its a bad example why did you use it? Then, 4. "The pea idea is only pointing out the stupidity of solar system barycentric planetary orbits." Andrew, what point are trying to make here? Whats stupid about the notion that planets orbit the barycenter. Planets orbit due to gravitational forces, the barycenter is the central point of the sum of the gravitational forces. Then, 5. "If you consider an earth sized object a few light years out then the idea becomes more practical. The object would create a very large change in the barycenter while changing nothing that mattered" Dang Andrew the main thrust of the discussion is the sum of the effects of Jupiter on the sun and earth. So you think its a smart idea to dispute it with an object less than one three hundreths the mass of Jupiter that is about 40,000 times further away. Have you lost your mind completely!!! then, 6. "The first thing to realise is that the Sun will never be the centre of a planetary orbit" Andrew why is this the first thing to realize? And why never? then, 7. "Theo, I already noticed you are one of the "barycentric folk"." Andrew you mean Astromet believes in the existence of a solar wobble? What is the point here? 8. "Nautonnier you are horribly muddled up. I gave you a link showing NASA saying the Sun wobbles due to the influence of jupiter, and at this point in time i have no reason at all to believe Svalgaard disputes NASA" Hmmm, Andrew at first above you claimed that Nautonnier was claiming (without evidence) that both NASA and Svalgard were disputing a solar wobble. Now you have switched to Nautonnier claiming Svalgaard disputes NASA, proving beyond any reasonable doubt you are making it all up. then, 9. "My maths only deals with the absurdity of planets orbiting a solar system barycenter. My maths says nothing at all about the Sun not being being influenced by the other planets. My maths says nothing at all about the Sun orbiting the solar system barycenter." Your maths prove absurdity? Explain the logic behind this nonsense! And DANG! ANDREW! This is only one guy on one topic in one day! Imagine the range of stupidity of scientists out there over the alleged 7 years!! . . . .and you dispute any range of stupidity at all!!! I dont have to provide evidence again for everything i say when there are threads here anybody can read for themselves. When you show me you are capable of acting in good faith then i will make an effort for you but meanwhile if you know how to read i suggest you do that instead of expecting me to be your mummy. I think the point is you have not provided any evidence of any of it and have retracted some of it, nor any logic for any of it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 3, 2015 18:20:58 GMT
I dont have to provide evidence again for everything i say when there are threads here anybody can read for themselves. When you show me you are capable of acting in good faith then i will make an effort for you but meanwhile if you know how to read i suggest you do that instead of expecting me to be your mummy. I think the point is you have not provided any evidence of any of it and have retracted some of it, nor any logic for any of it. Hint: I summarised the contents of a link, and you replied to that summary, included the summary and included the link. Are you telling me you are incapable of finding that link???
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 3, 2015 20:32:47 GMT
I think the point is you have not provided any evidence of any of it and have retracted some of it, nor any logic for any of it. Hint: I summarised the contents of a link, and you replied to that summary, included the summary and included the link. Are you telling me you are incapable of finding that link??? Brilliant Andrew! You were asked to provide a link to support your contention that Nautonnier had said variously NASA and Leif did not believe our star wobbles and at another time that Leif disagreed with NOAA over whether our star wobbles. So you with your IQ of 75 decide to post a series of quotes by Nautonnier with links completely devoid of either word, NASA or Leif, and you claim you did your job and that its up to me to verify your claim by finding those words myself. Actually all you did was prove you are a bald face liar and you will do anything to try to cover up your physics error regarding the barycenter offset as being indicative of the strength of the gravity field. No doubt you are confounding Nautonnier's posts with Svalgaard lecturing you on your ignorance and you are still in denial over it. I mean why else would Svalgaard post the "pea" story for you? Nuggets for a pea brain? Fits nicely with your upgrade to substituting earth for Jupiter and moving earth out a few lightyears.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 4, 2015 4:06:58 GMT
Hint: I summarised the contents of a link, and you replied to that summary, included the summary and included the link. Are you telling me you are incapable of finding that link??? Brilliant Andrew! You were asked to provide a link to support your contention that Nautonnier had said variously NASA and Leif did not believe our star wobbles and at another time that Leif disagreed with NOAA over whether our star wobbles. So you with your IQ of 75 decide to post a series of quotes by Nautonnier with links completely devoid of either word, NASA or Leif, and you claim you did your job and that its up to me to verify your claim by finding those words myself. Actually all you did was prove you are a bald face liar and you will do anything to try to cover up your physics error regarding the barycenter offset as being indicative of the strength of the gravity field. No doubt you are confounding Nautonnier's posts with Svalgaard lecturing you on your ignorance and you are still in denial over it. I mean why else would Svalgaard post the "pea" story for you? Nuggets for a pea brain? Fits nicely with your upgrade to substituting earth for Jupiter and moving earth out a few lightyears. Hint2: The summary summarised what Nautonnier said to me in 2013 and included a link for this 2013 conversation and you quoted my text accompanying the summary to begin your silly attack on me because I mistakenly said the tides were related to the barycenter. Hint1: I summarised the contents of a link, and you replied to that summary, included the summary and included the link.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 4, 2015 5:10:45 GMT
Brilliant Andrew! You were asked to provide a link to support your contention that Nautonnier had said variously NASA and Leif did not believe our star wobbles and at another time that Leif disagreed with NOAA over whether our star wobbles. So you with your IQ of 75 decide to post a series of quotes by Nautonnier with links completely devoid of either word, NASA or Leif, and you claim you did your job and that its up to me to verify your claim by finding those words myself. Actually all you did was prove you are a bald face liar and you will do anything to try to cover up your physics error regarding the barycenter offset as being indicative of the strength of the gravity field. No doubt you are confounding Nautonnier's posts with Svalgaard lecturing you on your ignorance and you are still in denial over it. I mean why else would Svalgaard post the "pea" story for you? Nuggets for a pea brain? Fits nicely with your upgrade to substituting earth for Jupiter and moving earth out a few lightyears. Hint2: The summary summarised what Nautonnier said to me in 2013 and included a link for this 2013 conversation and you quoted my text accompanying the summary to begin your silly attack on me because I mistakenly said the tides were related to the barycenter. Hint1: I summarised the contents of a link, and you replied to that summary, included the summary and included the link. 1. "As I recall, the tide on the Sun created by the barycenter is about 10cm high! less than 1cm" Yes Andrew we know you screwed up. 2." I noticed Leif Svalgaard said something like 'if a pea was placed sufficiently far from the Sun it would have a greater impact upon the SS barycenter than Jupiter has, and surely nobody would argue the pea could cause the planets to significantly alter their orbits?'" Nice post by Svalgaard explaining why the barycenter variance is not significant. Too bad you didn't understand him. 3. "The infinitely distant pea is not a good example because the pea would be outside the known universe and surely incapable of being in an orbit around a relatively tiny object like the Sun." Yes its a bad example. 4. "The pea idea is only pointing out the stupidity of solar system barycentric planetary orbits." Andrew, we know that! We know that its not the size of the orbit that matters. 5. "If you consider an earth sized object a few light years out then the idea becomes more practical. The object would create a very large change in the barycenter while changing nothing that mattered" Yes, Andrew the earth would cause a very small tide on the sun if its orbit was 4 light years away from the sun, but it doesn't be the sort of argument that suggests Jupiters effect would therefore be negligible. You continued to be totally muddled up here even to what people were talking about, much more so on barycenters. 6. "The first thing to realise is that the Sun will never be the centre of a planetary orbit" More confusion on your part Andrew. Yes orbits can be perfectly circular with the sun in the center, however, they hardly ever are because all the velocities and distances must be precisely right to obtain it. 7. "Theo, I already noticed you are one of the "barycentric folk"." Andrew knows what a barycenter is. 8. "Nautonnier you are horribly muddled up. I gave you a link showing NASA saying the Sun wobbles due to the influence of jupiter, and at this point in time i have no reason at all to believe Svalgaard disputes NASA" Hmmm, Andrew at first above you claimed that Nautonnier was claiming (without evidence) that both NASA and Svalgard were disputing a solar wobble. Now you have switched to Nautonnier claiming Svalgaard disputes NASA, proving beyond any reasonable doubt you are making it all up. then, 9. "My maths only deals with the absurdity of planets orbiting a solar system barycenter. My maths says nothing at all about the Sun not being being influenced by the other planets. My maths says nothing at all about the Sun orbiting the solar system barycenter." The only thing absurd is your nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 4, 2015 5:20:54 GMT
Hint2: The summary summarised what Nautonnier said to me in 2013 and included a link for this 2013 conversation and you quoted my text accompanying the summary to begin your silly attack on me because I mistakenly said the tides were related to the barycenter. Hint1: I summarised the contents of a link, and you replied to that summary, included the summary and included the link. 1. "As I recall, the tide on the Sun created by the barycenter is about 10cm high! less than 1cm" Yes Andrew we know you screwed up. 2." I noticed Leif Svalgaard said something like 'if a pea was placed sufficiently far from the Sun it would have a greater impact upon the SS barycenter than Jupiter has, and surely nobody would argue the pea could cause the planets to significantly alter their orbits?'" Nice post by Svalgaard explaining why the barycenter variance is not significant. Too bad you didn't understand him. 3. "The infinitely distant pea is not a good example because the pea would be outside the known universe and surely incapable of being in an orbit around a relatively tiny object like the Sun." Yes its a bad example. 4. "The pea idea is only pointing out the stupidity of solar system barycentric planetary orbits." Andrew, we know that! We know that its not the size of the orbit that matters. 5. "If you consider an earth sized object a few light years out then the idea becomes more practical. The object would create a very large change in the barycenter while changing nothing that mattered" Yes, Andrew the earth would cause a very small tide on the sun if its orbit was 4 light years away from the sun, but it doesn't be the sort of argument that suggests Jupiters effect would therefore be negligible. You continued to be totally muddled up here even to what people were talking about, much more so on barycenters. 6. "The first thing to realise is that the Sun will never be the centre of a planetary orbit" More confusion on your part Andrew. Yes orbits can be perfectly circular with the sun in the center, however, they hardly ever are because all the velocities and distances must be precisely right to obtain it. 7. "Theo, I already noticed you are one of the "barycentric folk"." Andrew knows what a barycenter is. 8. "Nautonnier you are horribly muddled up. I gave you a link showing NASA saying the Sun wobbles due to the influence of jupiter, and at this point in time i have no reason at all to believe Svalgaard disputes NASA" Hmmm, Andrew at first above you claimed that Nautonnier was claiming (without evidence) that both NASA and Svalgard were disputing a solar wobble. Now you have switched to Nautonnier claiming Svalgaard disputes NASA, proving beyond any reasonable doubt you are making it all up. then, 9. "My maths only deals with the absurdity of planets orbiting a solar system barycenter. My maths says nothing at all about the Sun not being being influenced by the other planets. My maths says nothing at all about the Sun orbiting the solar system barycenter." The only thing absurd is your nonsense. Icefisher your enormously superior intelligence compared to my lower IQ is not going to help you find that link if you make no effort to find it. This conversation should be about Science and the data rather than your superiority. I never claimed to be a perfect being of great intelligence. My theme on this forum has always been that we are talking about simple ideas that a child can understand if they want to. I detailed that Nautonnier was horribly muddled up back in 2013. You very recently quoted the text where i summarised that a few days ago so I suggest you go find this data rather than expecting me to hold your hand and do it for you.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 4, 2015 17:07:42 GMT
Icefisher your enormously superior intelligence compared to my lower IQ is not going to help you find that link if you make no effort to find it. This conversation should be about Science and the data rather than your superiority. I never claimed to be a perfect being of great intelligence. My theme on this forum has always been that we are talking about simple ideas that a child can understand if they want to. I detailed that Nautonnier was horribly muddled up back in 2013. You very recently quoted the text where i summarised that a few days ago so I suggest you go find this data rather than expecting me to hold your hand and do it for you. Enormously superior intelligence??? It doesn't take much intelligence to get high school physics right and to actually carefully read what somebody has posted for your accurate interpretation before calling that person all muddled up.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 4, 2015 18:15:54 GMT
Icefisher your enormously superior intelligence compared to my lower IQ is not going to help you find that link if you make no effort to find it. This conversation should be about Science and the data rather than your superiority. I never claimed to be a perfect being of great intelligence. My theme on this forum has always been that we are talking about simple ideas that a child can understand if they want to. I detailed that Nautonnier was horribly muddled up back in 2013. You very recently quoted the text where i summarised that a few days ago so I suggest you go find this data rather than expecting me to hold your hand and do it for you. Enormously superior intelligence??? It doesn't take much intelligence to get high school physics right and to actually carefully read what somebody has posted for your accurate interpretation before calling that person all muddled up. So you found that bit where Nautonnier says Svalgaard disagrees with NASA on everything when it comes to barycenters. I just can not imagine why he would have written something so foolish.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 4, 2015 18:25:16 GMT
Enormously superior intelligence??? It doesn't take much intelligence to get high school physics right and to actually carefully read what somebody has posted for your accurate interpretation before calling that person all muddled up. So you found that bit where Nautonnier says Svalgaard disagrees with NASA on everything when it comes to barycenters. I just can not imagine why he would have written something so foolish. Its not worth looking for, the person who claimed to discover it is a known liar.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 4, 2015 18:50:57 GMT
So you found that bit where Nautonnier says Svalgaard disagrees with NASA on everything when it comes to barycenters. I just can not imagine why he would have written something so foolish. Its not worth looking for, the person who claimed to discover it is a known liar. Oh so admit you never even looked for it before calling me muddled up. Dear oh dear
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 4, 2015 20:32:33 GMT
A 4 person panel of solar experts at the AGU meeting discussed the current small Solar Cycle. Dr Svalgaard was one of the participants. In response to a question about the possible effect of low Solar cycles on the earth's climate, the answer was that there would be no effect. The effect would be in the thermosphere where milliwatts per square meter matter not on the earths surface where hundreds of watts per square meter are necessary for change. I was surprised at the level of certainty and apparent harmony (by lack of disagreement) with respect to global warming. Svalgaard noted the 100-year cycle apparent recently in Solar activitivy but he opined that this was probably due to chance. Here's a video of the presentation. linkLeif spends his time ambushing threads on WUWT saying repeatedly that the Sun has almost no effect on climate, that there is no tidal effect of planets on the Sun, that the Sun (unlike all other stars with planets) is not affected by the planets and thus orbiting a barycenter, but rather it continues in 'free fall' completely unaffected and unchanging by the pull of Jupiter and Saturn... Nautonnier, are you ever going to explain why you keep on saying Svalgaard thinks the Sun is unlike other stars with planets?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 5, 2015 12:14:16 GMT
Leif spends his time ambushing threads on WUWT saying repeatedly that the Sun has almost no effect on climate, that there is no tidal effect of planets on the Sun, that the Sun (unlike all other stars with planets) is not affected by the planets and thus orbiting a barycenter, but rather it continues in 'free fall' completely unaffected and unchanging by the pull of Jupiter and Saturn... Nautonnier, are you ever going to explain why you keep on saying Svalgaard thinks the Sun is unlike other stars with planets? It was a response to a barycenter comment on WUWT. It is not worth me going to find it _again_ as you will just ignore what is written - as you have proved here. Even you were saying/quoting that it was impossible for the Sun to be moved by the planets as the tide raised by them was only 10cm. As Icefisher has pointed out you are unable to grasp high school physics or ignore it if it does not meet your preconceptions. If you want to see more comments from Leif you should go to WUWT and search on Barycenter then read the thread. You won't but you could.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 5, 2015 13:24:23 GMT
Nautonnier, are you ever going to explain why you keep on saying Svalgaard thinks the Sun is unlike other stars with planets? It was a response to a barycenter comment on WUWT. It is not worth me going to find it _again_ as you will just ignore what is written - as you have proved here. Even you were saying/quoting that it was impossible for the Sun to be moved by the planets as the tide raised by them was only 10cm. As Icefisher has pointed out you are unable to grasp high school physics or ignore it if it does not meet your preconceptions. If you want to see more comments from Leif you should go to WUWT and search on Barycenter then read the thread. You won't but you could. You are totally muddled up. The planets move the sun!!!!! How many more times do i have to tell you the planets move the sun!!! Leif, Astronomers and NASA know the planets move the sun. Every man and his dog knows the planets move the Sun You were told in 2008 in very very clear terms there is no dispute the planets move the sun!!! And yet you keep repeating that Svalgaard is some kind of idiot. For the record i have spent days and days going thru WUWT to read Leifs comments. I have not ignored anything. I am not a liar. >>Even you were saying/quoting that it was impossible for the Sun to be moved by the planets as the tide raised by them was only 10cm. You are just muddled up. The planets very significantly move the Sun but only create a tiny tide on the Sun. Even the Earth moves the Sun about 1000 miles a year. The biggest tide on the Sun from all the planets combined is about 1.5mm
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 6, 2015 11:30:34 GMT
Where the sun goes the planets will follow.
|
|