|
Post by Andrew on Jun 1, 2015 22:27:09 GMT
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?'
An easier calculation is to consider an object the size of our Moon entering the solar system at a distance of 4 light years or 37,566,167,040,000km from the Sun. This insignificant object would create a barycenter twice the distance from the Sun that Jupiter can create.
The maths for these calculations is easy (although i might have made some errors) and can be found on the wiki barycenter page plus you need to get the relative masses of the objects.
The moon has .0123 the mass of Earth, Jupiter 318 times, The Sun 333,000 times.
For the moon at 4 light years Barycenter distance = 4 light years x .0123/333,000.0123 = 1,387,579km
For Jupiters current orbit = 779,000,000 x 318/330,318 = 743,200km
You can also easily see that if you placed Jupiter twice the distance from the Sun it is going to have twice the 'barycentric' influence it will have currently and yet the ability of Jupiter to disturb the Sun or the Earth gravitationally would be reduced dramatically further by such a huge distance.
It is therefore not possible for the planets to be orbiting the Solar systems barycenter. The idea is shown to be daft that they could be.
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Jun 1, 2015 23:19:59 GMT
maybe it's not the mass or gravity ?as humans we are smart but come on we still kill each other .. do we know every force out there. more likely to be electro magnetic feed back loop of sorts .. so what are we orbiting a single point in space ? no planets orbit is completely round there is always some movement .. but if you could give me your question or answer I could think on it more ?
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Jun 2, 2015 0:03:34 GMT
An easier calculation is to consider an object the size of our Moon entering the solar system at a distance of 4 light years or 37,566,167,040,000km from the Sun. This insignificant object would create a barycenter twice the distance from the Sun that Jupiter can create. Well Proxima Centauri is a red dwarf about 4.24 light-years from the Sun and then there is Alpha Centauri system at 4.37 light years. (warning Will Robinson!)
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 2, 2015 5:15:50 GMT
maybe it's not the mass or gravity ?as humans we are smart but come on we still kill each other .. do we know every force out there. more likely to be electro magnetic feed back loop of sorts .. so what are we orbiting a single point in space ? no planets orbit is completely round there is always some movement .. but if you could give me your question or answer I could think on it more ? Perhaps this helps? 'Barycentric folk' are claiming that in reality there is some sort of climate science conspiracy, where they claim the earth sun distance must change, and therefore the measurements are wrong or falsified, because they claim the Earth must orbit around the solar system barycenter because this is how it must work according to the known laws of physics. However according to some simple maths and using established ideas happily used by 'barycentric folk', the idea of planets orbiting the solar system barycenter can be shown to be just a daft idea.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 2, 2015 5:32:57 GMT
An easier calculation is to consider an object the size of our Moon entering the solar system at a distance of 4 light years or 37,566,167,040,000km from the Sun. This insignificant object would create a barycenter twice the distance from the Sun that Jupiter can create. Well Proxima Centauri is a red dwarf about 4.24 light-years from the Sun and then there is Alpha Centauri system at 4.37 light years. (warning Will Robinson!) An interesting thought, but I am imagining these large objects are all moving in a similar direction to our Sun and our planets, rather than tracking across the sky like a very distant planet/asteroid would be doing.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 2, 2015 9:22:15 GMT
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?' An easier calculation is to consider an object the size of our Moon entering the solar system at a distance of 4 light years or 37,566,167,040,000km from the Sun. This insignificant object would create a barycenter twice the distance from the Sun that Jupiter can create. The maths for these calculations is easy (although i might have made some errors) and can be found on the wiki barycenter page plus you need to get the relative masses of the objects. The moon has .0123 the mass of Earth, Jupiter 318 times, The Sun 333,000 times. For the moon at 4 light years Barycenter distance = 4 light years x .0123/333,000.0123 = 1,387,579km For Jupiters current orbit = 779,000,000 x 318/330,318 = 743,200km You can also easily see that if you placed Jupiter twice the distance from the Sun it is going to have twice the 'barycentric' influence it will have currently and yet the ability of Jupiter to disturb the Sun or the Earth gravitationally would be reduced dramatically further by such a huge distance. It is therefore not possible for the planets to be orbiting the Solar systems barycenter. The idea is shown to be daft that they could be. The argument you are advancing is simply nonsense. If Jupiter were twice as far from the sun not only would the solar wobble expand from about one solar diameter to two solar diameters the period of the wobble (and Jupiter's orbit period) would decrease by a larger factor demonstrating the expected reduction in influence. A given force in one direction is proportional to its time of application-. Reduce the force by a factor of two and increase the time by 4 and you will produce twice the wobble at one fourth the period. . . .so yes Andrew the energy/total motion influence would be reduced as expected. If Jupiter traveled at the same speed in its theoretical 10au distance from the sun it would not orbit but would spin off into space. If an object goes too slow it will fall into the sun, if it goes too fast it will escape orbit. Thus the further from the sun an orbit is the slower the object must be to stay in orbit. the pea is a ridiculous example when simple practical examples demonstrate the real influence (not some arbitrary slice of the influence i.e. wobble diameter only versus total motion it induces) in terms of conventional simple high school physics. No doubt (or at least hopefully) Svaalgard is just toying with your ignorance. A pea would have to be more than a septillion light years from the sun to have the same wobble diameter as Jupiter but a protozoa from the first epoch of life on earth would not be nearly old enough today to have seen even one degree of a single solar diameter wobble resulting from it or of the pea's orbit for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 2, 2015 9:50:01 GMT
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?' An easier calculation is to consider an object the size of our Moon entering the solar system at a distance of 4 light years or 37,566,167,040,000km from the Sun. This insignificant object would create a barycenter twice the distance from the Sun that Jupiter can create. The maths for these calculations is easy (although i might have made some errors) and can be found on the wiki barycenter page plus you need to get the relative masses of the objects. The moon has .0123 the mass of Earth, Jupiter 318 times, The Sun 333,000 times. For the moon at 4 light years Barycenter distance = 4 light years x .0123/333,000.0123 = 1,387,579km For Jupiters current orbit = 779,000,000 x 318/330,318 = 743,200km You can also easily see that if you placed Jupiter twice the distance from the Sun it is going to have twice the 'barycentric' influence it will have currently and yet the ability of Jupiter to disturb the Sun or the Earth gravitationally would be reduced dramatically further by such a huge distance. It is therefore not possible for the planets to be orbiting the Solar systems barycenter. The idea is shown to be daft that they could be. The argument you are advancing is simply nonsense. If Jupiter were twice as far from the sun not only would the solar wobble expand from about one solar diameter to two solar diameters the period of the wobble (and Jupiter's orbit period) would decrease by a larger factor demonstrating the expected reduction in influence. A given force in one direction is proportional to its time of application-. Reduce the force by a factor of two and increase the time by 4 and you will produce twice the wobble at one fourth the period. . . .so yes Andrew the energy/total motion influence would be reduced as expected. If Jupiter traveled at the same speed in its theoretical 10au distance from the sun it would not orbit but would spin off into space. If an object goes too slow it will fall into the sun, if it goes too fast it will escape orbit. Thus the further from the sun an orbit is the slower the object must be to stay in orbit. the pea is a ridiculous example when simple practical examples demonstrate the real influence (not some arbitrary slice of the influence i.e. wobble diameter only versus total motion it induces) in terms of conventional simple high school physics. No doubt (or at least hopefully) Svaalgard is just toying with your ignorance. A pea would have to be more than a septillion light years from the sun to have the same wobble diameter as Jupiter but a protozoa from the first epoch of life on earth would not be nearly old enough today to have seen even one degree of a single solar diameter wobble resulting from it or of the pea's orbit for that matter. How can the argument be nonsense? As I explained via illustration using simple arithmetic, if an object the size of the moon enters the solar system at the appropriate speed at a distance of 4 light years it will cause the solar system barycenter to change position by about 700,000km. Additionally, if you place only an Earth sized object in orbit around the sun at a distance of 4 light years the barycenter will move 113,000,000KM. We then ask the question whether these small solar system changes are going to majorly change earths orbit? Moving Jupiter is just more of the same and far easier to grasp. The nonsense argument is the idea the Earth orbits the solar system barycenter
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 2, 2015 11:31:09 GMT
The argument you are advancing is simply nonsense. If Jupiter were twice as far from the sun not only would the solar wobble expand from about one solar diameter to two solar diameters the period of the wobble (and Jupiter's orbit period) would decrease by a larger factor demonstrating the expected reduction in influence. A given force in one direction is proportional to its time of application-. Reduce the force by a factor of two and increase the time by 4 and you will produce twice the wobble at one fourth the period. . . .so yes Andrew the energy/total motion influence would be reduced as expected. If Jupiter traveled at the same speed in its theoretical 10au distance from the sun it would not orbit but would spin off into space. If an object goes too slow it will fall into the sun, if it goes too fast it will escape orbit. Thus the further from the sun an orbit is the slower the object must be to stay in orbit. the pea is a ridiculous example when simple practical examples demonstrate the real influence (not some arbitrary slice of the influence i.e. wobble diameter only versus total motion it induces) in terms of conventional simple high school physics. No doubt (or at least hopefully) Svaalgard is just toying with your ignorance. A pea would have to be more than a septillion light years from the sun to have the same wobble diameter as Jupiter but a protozoa from the first epoch of life on earth would not be nearly old enough today to have seen even one degree of a single solar diameter wobble resulting from it or of the pea's orbit for that matter. How can the argument be nonsense? As I explained via illustration using simple arithmetic, if an object the size of the moon enters the solar system at the appropriate speed at a distance of 4 light years it will cause the solar system barycenter to change position by about 700,000km. Additionally, if you place only an Earth sized object in orbit around the sun at a distance of 4 light years the barycenter will move 113,000,000KM. We then ask the question whether these small solar system changes are going to majorly change earths orbit? Moving Jupiter is just more of the same and far easier to grasp. The nonsense argument is the idea the Earth orbits the solar system barycenter Tbh . ..The way I understood the barycenter effect to be was directly on the sun and it's activity?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 2, 2015 12:01:56 GMT
How can the argument be nonsense? As I explained via illustration using simple arithmetic, if an object the size of the moon enters the solar system at the appropriate speed at a distance of 4 light years it will cause the solar system barycenter to change position by about 700,000km. Additionally, if you place only an Earth sized object in orbit around the sun at a distance of 4 light years the barycenter will move 113,000,000KM. We then ask the question whether these small solar system changes are going to majorly change earths orbit? Moving Jupiter is just more of the same and far easier to grasp. The nonsense argument is the idea the Earth orbits the solar system barycenter Tbh . ..The way I understood the barycenter effect to be was directly on the sun and it's activity? There appear to be different flavours being promoted Nautonnier recented posted an unpublished paper claiming the outer planets were orbiting the barycenter semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Orbital_Resonance_and_Solar_Cycles.pdfThese fairly well organised sites claim the planets orbit the barycenter nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=377&Itemid=1solarchords.com/solar-chord-science/astrophysicists-earth-orbit-sun-or-barycentre/Once you discount planets orbiting the barycenter you are left with the influence of a maximum combined planetary tide on the Sun of less than 2mm.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 2, 2015 15:37:02 GMT
I have as usual quoted other people's research.
However, as astronomers are currently searching for stars with planets by looking at planets 'wobbling' this according to Andrew is not possible. Perhaps he should tell the astronomers using the stars orbiting a barycenter that they are imagining things. I am not sure how a binary star system exists - obviously they should fly apart as there is not enough force to keep them in orbit around each other.
This drops into the observed data shows that planets orbit stars and stars are perturbed in their orbits by the planets orbiting them. If your maths says that stars and planets being accelerated around an orbit is impossible then I refer you to Feynman's famous quote.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 2, 2015 16:54:58 GMT
I have as usual quoted other people's research. However, as astronomers are currently searching for stars with planets by looking at planets 'wobbling' this according to Andrew is not possible. Perhaps he should tell the astronomers using the stars orbiting a barycenter that they are imagining things. I am not sure how a binary star system exists - obviously they should fly apart as there is not enough force to keep them in orbit around each other. This drops into the observed data shows that planets orbit stars and stars are perturbed in their orbits by the planets orbiting them. If your maths says that stars and planets being accelerated around an orbit is impossible then I refer you to Feynman's famous quote. 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 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. My maths specifically says if an Earth mass is placed 4 light years from the Sun, the barycenter will be moved 113,000,000KM from its present position and then it naturally follows the Sun is going to be significantly displaced by that Barycenter as will the Earth be displaced. The Earth however will continue to orbit the Sun.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 2, 2015 17:37:31 GMT
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?' An easier calculation is to consider an object the size of our Moon entering the solar system at a distance of 4 light years or 37,566,167,040,000km from the Sun. This insignificant object would create a barycenter twice the distance from the Sun that Jupiter can create. The maths for these calculations is easy (although i might have made some errors) and can be found on the wiki barycenter page plus you need to get the relative masses of the objects. The moon has .0123 the mass of Earth, Jupiter 318 times, The Sun 333,000 times. For the moon at 4 light years Barycenter distance = 4 light years x .0123/333,000.0123 = 1,387,579km For Jupiters current orbit = 779,000,000 x 318/330,318 = 743,200km You can also easily see that if you placed Jupiter twice the distance from the Sun it is going to have twice the 'barycentric' influence it will have currently and yet the ability of Jupiter to disturb the Sun or the Earth gravitationally would be reduced dramatically further by such a huge distance. It is therefore not possible for the planets to be orbiting the Solar systems barycenter. The idea is shown to be daft that they could be. The argument you are advancing is simply nonsense. If Jupiter were twice as far from the sun not only would the solar wobble expand from about one solar diameter to two solar diameters the period of the wobble (and Jupiter's orbit period) would decrease by a larger factor demonstrating the expected reduction in influence. A given force in one direction is proportional to its time of application-. Reduce the force by a factor of two and increase the time by 4 and you will produce twice the wobble at one fourth the period. . . .so yes Andrew the energy/total motion influence would be reduced as expected. If Jupiter traveled at the same speed in its theoretical 10au distance from the sun it would not orbit but would spin off into space. If an object goes too slow it will fall into the sun, if it goes too fast it will escape orbit. Thus the further from the sun an orbit is the slower the object must be to stay in orbit. the pea is a ridiculous example when simple practical examples demonstrate the real influence (not some arbitrary slice of the influence i.e. wobble diameter only versus total motion it induces) in terms of conventional simple high school physics. No doubt (or at least hopefully) Svaalgard is just toying with your ignorance. A pea would have to be more than a septillion light years from the sun to have the same wobble diameter as Jupiter but a protozoa from the first epoch of life on earth would not be nearly old enough today to have seen even one degree of a single solar diameter wobble resulting from it or of the pea's orbit for that matter. Thank you Icefisher. As usual, you are an anchor of common sense and science. As for what you've said Andrew, please listen to Icefisher, and also note the facts of the Sun, Barycenter and the planets. See ->> solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/2413/global-cooling-forecast-basics-astrometeorology
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 2, 2015 18:09:02 GMT
The argument you are advancing is simply nonsense. If Jupiter were twice as far from the sun not only would the solar wobble expand from about one solar diameter to two solar diameters the period of the wobble (and Jupiter's orbit period) would decrease by a larger factor demonstrating the expected reduction in influence. A given force in one direction is proportional to its time of application-. Reduce the force by a factor of two and increase the time by 4 and you will produce twice the wobble at one fourth the period. . . .so yes Andrew the energy/total motion influence would be reduced as expected. If Jupiter traveled at the same speed in its theoretical 10au distance from the sun it would not orbit but would spin off into space. If an object goes too slow it will fall into the sun, if it goes too fast it will escape orbit. Thus the further from the sun an orbit is the slower the object must be to stay in orbit. the pea is a ridiculous example when simple practical examples demonstrate the real influence (not some arbitrary slice of the influence i.e. wobble diameter only versus total motion it induces) in terms of conventional simple high school physics. No doubt (or at least hopefully) Svaalgard is just toying with your ignorance. A pea would have to be more than a septillion light years from the sun to have the same wobble diameter as Jupiter but a protozoa from the first epoch of life on earth would not be nearly old enough today to have seen even one degree of a single solar diameter wobble resulting from it or of the pea's orbit for that matter. Thank you Icefisher. As usual, you are an anchor of common sense and science. As for what you've said Andrew, please listen to Icefisher, and also note the facts of the Sun, Barycenter and the planets. See ->> solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/2413/global-cooling-forecast-basics-astrometeorologyTheo I already noticed you are one of the "barycentric folk".
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 2, 2015 18:30:49 GMT
I reckon the planets orbit the gravitational center of the solar system....as the sun is the largest but not the total force of gravity...It must be off centre to the sun by some degree.
The maths to quantify this is not my strong point.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 2, 2015 18:54:18 GMT
I have as usual quoted other people's research. However, as astronomers are currently searching for stars with planets by looking at planets 'wobbling' this according to Andrew is not possible. Perhaps he should tell the astronomers using the stars orbiting a barycenter that they are imagining things. I am not sure how a binary star system exists - obviously they should fly apart as there is not enough force to keep them in orbit around each other. This drops into the observed data shows that planets orbit stars and stars are perturbed in their orbits by the planets orbiting them. If your maths says that stars and planets being accelerated around an orbit is impossible then I refer you to Feynman's famous quote. 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 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. My maths specifically says if an Earth mass is placed 4 light years from the Sun, the barycenter will be moved 113,000,000KM from its present position and then it naturally follows the Sun is going to be significantly displaced by that Barycenter as will the Earth be displaced. The Earth however will continue to orbit the Sun. Seems to me you are invoking meaningless objections. The planets orbit the sun, the sun orbits the barycenter (you agreed with all that, I think or at least your objection was effectively refuted by my previous post i.e. your claim that its not intuitive that a object further from the sun will have a larger affect on the diameter of the solar orbit around the barycenter, fact is high school physics very clearly says it will), therefore the planets also orbit the barycenter on average because the barycenter is the center of where the sun is. . . .on average. Same deal with affects on earth's orbit shape. If Jupiter affects the sun and the earth its also going to affect the shape of the orbit around the sun via variations in distance and speed brought on by their mutual gravitational attraction to each other as their separation varies. So as you move towards agreement your objection to Nautonnier's comments seem to be fading into obscurity. Perhaps you could restate your objection more clearly this time as opposed to simply making the claim he is horribly muddled up. I have no idea what you are talking about anymore.
|
|