|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 30, 2018 10:18:21 GMT
Really? Uranus and Neptune radically changing the path of the sun? Ab_sol_utely... the sun wobbles in its path through space, especially when the heavier planets are all on one side as they are at the moment. Ask yourself another question the planets are continually being accelerated toward the Sun as they follow a circular path rather than fly off at a tangent. How much force do you think is needed to alter the path of a planet like Jupiter so it stays in orbit? That centripetal force s considerable and is balanced by a similar force on the Sun as both bodies are orbiting around each other or rather the center of mass of the two body system. This is fundamental physics and is happily accepted in 'the two body problem' see scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Two-BodyProblem.html but for some reason is considered heresy if it is applied to the Sun and the planets.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 30, 2018 10:25:21 GMT
More from Tallbloke's Talkshop: " oldbrew commented on Suggestions-33.
in response to oldbrew:
Comparing solar motion: 1632-1671 with 1990-2030 (both periods = 2 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions). The left half of the image has been rotated 90 degrees left. The red crosshairs meet at the solar system barycentre.
Re 1632-1671: Maunder Minimum started around 1645. Are we near a 21st century minimum?"
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 30, 2018 10:37:39 GMT
There is currently a heated (sic) argument taking place on WUWT see wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/28/solar-activity-flatlines-weakest-solar-cycle-in-200-years/. It is worth a read. But I get the impression that Leif the deuteragonist in the exchange considers the Sun as floating in a void with only the internal interactions being of concern. This shows a failure to look at the Solar System as a system and possibly a failure to look at the Solar System as a subsystem of the Galaxy. Watching coffee swirling after it has been stirred is one thing but if the cup itself is on the rim of a turntable that is rotating is another and if that turntable itself is on a roundabout - then the inertial effects on the coffee cannot be considered as if it was a stationary cup. Watching the swirling of the solar atmosphere allows some level of forecasting based on previous swirling but it is probable that those swirls and magnetic effects are effects not causes.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 30, 2018 15:02:29 GMT
Ab_sol_utely... the sun wobbles in its path through space, especially when the heavier planets are all on one side as they are at the moment. Ask yourself another question the planets are continually being accelerated toward the Sun as they follow a circular path rather than fly off at a tangent. How much force do you think is needed to alter the path of a planet like Jupiter so it stays in orbit? That centripetal force s considerable and is balanced by a similar force on the Sun as both bodies are orbiting around each other or rather the center of mass of the two body system. This is fundamental physics and is happily accepted in 'the two body problem' see scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Two-BodyProblem.html but for some reason is considered heresy if it is applied to the Sun and the planets. I would be happy to read any actual scientific papers that support the premise of Uranus and Neptune " radically" changing the path of the sun. While I'm waiting I'm going to call an expert down at the UW in 30 minutes or so and see if the idea has merit. Depends what you call 'radical' the 'barycenter' (cough) the center of mass of the Solar System moves up to 2 diameters outside the Sun. So the Sun is then orbiting that point not just spinning immovably in the heavens in the same way the Pope held that the Earth was immovable with the other bodies circling it. That is the point of the diagram in Theo's first post.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on May 1, 2018 0:20:45 GMT
You know I have worked in the area of science for a long time and can see that barycenter argument as being entirely correct but I am still left with the feeling of so what. Does it impact angular momentum or something, maybe Coriolis within the various bodies as it swings from large orbit to much smaller with planetary rotation.
I would love to hear a discussion from a proper unbiased physicist on the impact on these bodies. The big dismissal is the sun is huge the planets are small, but the barycenter does reside outside of the very large sun.
help me please. Ratty a story will do but a good one.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 1, 2018 0:56:05 GMT
You know I have worked in the area of science for a long time and can see that barycenter argument as being entirely correct but I am still left with the feeling of so what. Does it impact angular momentum or something, maybe Coriolis within the various bodies as it swings from large orbit to much smaller with planetary rotation. I would love to hear a discussion from a proper unbiased physicist on the impact on these bodies. The big dismissal is the sun is huge the planets are small, but the barycenter does reside outside of the very large sun. help me please. Ratty a story will do but a good one. All my stories are ratty.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 1, 2018 12:55:57 GMT
Mild Winter in France ?? ??www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/Warning-as-Asian-hornets-emerge-earlyThe mild winter has prompted bee-killing Asian hornet queens to emerge from hibernation earlier than normal, beekeepers have warned. Apiarists in the Haute-Garonne say they have already captured more early emerging queens than in previous years - and said that they expect insect numbers to be higher than normal this summer. The hornets will be building nests under roofs, in attics, hedges, garages or even dog kennels now. After spending the winter underground, each queen hornet builds a new nest every year. A mature colony can have up to 5,000 hornets. First seen in the south-west of France in 2004, the asian hornet has rapidly spread across the country. They made it as far as Rennes, Brittany, by 2011 - and have now crossed the Channel to the UK.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 1, 2018 17:35:02 GMT
Top of my internet search on Solar Epitrochoid orbit was a reference to my post on this board ten years ago. The post and the responses neatly sum up the blind spots in some people's understanding of inertia/momentum and gravity. It also has a good example of thread killing See solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/258/epitrochoid-orbits-barycentersSo if you believe that being in 'free fall' into a 'gravity well', removes the mass properties of inertia/momentum then barycenters can have no effect - indeed one could argue that they can have no existence as if bodies are without mass and inertia they cannot orbit another body. I think some people are mistaking a simplified visualization of gravity (weights on a rubber sheet) for the real actuality Interesting blast from the past
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on May 1, 2018 18:04:05 GMT
OK Naut the exoplanet thing has it progressed from there? From the point of view of a person looking for a reason for some perturbation of our sun and planets I am going to suggest that the key issue is how close are the orbiting bodies to point masses, or body size relative orbital radius is everything. Including the Sun clearly. Again just a quick look suggests that the larger the bodies relative to orbital radius the more opportunity for intra-body perturbation.
We are arguing for a material impact on fluid flows within the sun are we not. Exoplanets may be large but are likely to fail the test due to body size relative to orbit size. Is there a perturbation impact sweet spot at say the Jupiter Saturn distance That's it, above my grant radius.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 1, 2018 23:10:32 GMT
OK Naut the exoplanet thing has it progressed from there? From the point of view of a person looking for a reason for some perturbation of our sun and planets I am going to suggest that the key issue is how close are the orbiting bodies to point masses, or body size relative orbital radius is everything. Including the Sun clearly. Again just a quick look suggests that the larger the bodies relative to orbital radius the more opportunity for intra-body perturbation. We are arguing for a material impact on fluid flows within the sun are we not. Exoplanets may be large but are likely to fail the test due to body size relative to orbit size. Is there a perturbation impact sweet spot at say the Jupiter Saturn distance That's it, above my grant radius. Let us assume that the sun is mainly gaseous around a central core and that it is rotating about its own axis that is vertical against a horizontal plane of the ecliptic. So this rotating mainly fluid body is actually also 'orbiting' the barycenter meaning it is circling that position. So imagine looking down on the Sun revolving anticlockwise and imagine the effect of the point it is orbiting about being just inside the surface moving against the anticlockwise rotation. The opposite side of the Sun is now accelerating more around the barycenter than the side with the barycenter. This is what is meant by epitrochoid orbit. A nice description here durangobill.com/Trochoids.htmlNow imagine the angular acceleration changes in the Sun's plasma - there are fairground rides that have a similar pattern and if you have been on them you will have experienced the acceleration then deceleration as the seats orbit each other while in a larger orbit. Now the Earth is orbiting the sun and is following the Sun's movement so also has an epitrochoid orbit not only of its own (considering the Sun stationary) but also the Earth's orbit perturbed by the Sun's own epitrochoid motion. Given the angular velocity changes - would that account for more earthquakes as the Earth's crust is stressed as it follows the more rapid changes in the Sun's epitrochoid orbit which may happen to occur at Solar Cycle Minima? These are not my theories but those of a mathematician Theodore Landscheidt. See www.landscheidt.info/ and also an Australian Rhodes Fairbridge: faculty.fgcu.edu/twimberley/enviropol/envirophilo/fairbridge.pdfBoth papers are worth reading. However, the theories are disparaged as 'astrology' by some solar scientists and as we know the very mention of 'barycenter' gets a reaction in some quarters more adverse than Kanye West supporting Trump.
|
|
|
Post by juancarnuba on May 2, 2018 18:26:37 GMT
Jupiter is responsible for the 11 year cycle of the sun spots. At perihelion sun spots are lowest. Yes Jupiter affects the path of the Sun.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 3, 2018 12:14:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 3, 2018 16:15:30 GMT
Not convinced. Cart before the horse theories. The sunspot count appears to reflect the energy of these combined processes at around 20 and 23.6 years, which necessarily has apparent periods of 0.5*T1, 0.5*T2, T1*T2/(T2+T1), and T1*T2/(T2-T1) years, or 10 years, 11.8 years, 10.8 years, and 131 years. The 11.8 year period is very close to 11.86 years, the orbital period of Jupiter. Correlation is not causation Ahh I understand - so the sunspots drive Jupiter's orbit... What you need to factor in is that there are more heavy planets than just Jupiter. So although there is a correlation running back many cycles - it is muddied by Saturn and Neptune - and perhaps the other planets too. This is why there is no simple correlation.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 3, 2018 18:17:32 GMT
There's a sleet and snow watch for some parts trow...max 4-6°c, but improving after that. As usual however, our awful is only moderate compared to non-atlantic influenced continental areas 😉 Us middle-earth continentals are just beginning to see the "regular" moist GOM air masses overcoming the dry, cold northern flow. We only got 0.5 inches of rain in April .. 3 inches below normal. Gives meaning to how a colder climate might be a dryer climate at important times ... like spring. Don't think I like the implications. Followup. It's official. April 2018 for central Missouri is the driest April in our 127 year recorded record. That with the greatest number of April days with a minimum below 32 F. Cold and dry do seem to go together in our portion of the Midwest, as has been suggested for previous cold periods. Is it a weaker tropical-subtropical flow ... together with a stronger Arctic "push"? The orchard is filing a grievance, but maintaining a quiet English desperation.
|
|
|
Post by flearider on May 3, 2018 19:20:24 GMT
Not convinced. Cart before the horse theories. The sunspot count appears to reflect the energy of these combined processes at around 20 and 23.6 years, which necessarily has apparent periods of 0.5*T1, 0.5*T2, T1*T2/(T2+T1), and T1*T2/(T2-T1) years, or 10 years, 11.8 years, 10.8 years, and 131 years. The 11.8 year period is very close to 11.86 years, the orbital period of Jupiter. Correlation is not causation unless there is slight lag due to distance ?
|
|