|
Post by Andrew on Jun 2, 2015 18:54:59 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. The first thing to realise is that the Sun will never be the centre of a planetary orbit
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jun 2, 2015 19:03:45 GMT
So a pea at an infinite distance has a large impact? I think not. The impact of orbiting planets may be real but putting them further out can only make their influence from a tidal impact perspective less.
Somehow the distant galaxies are the big story in the planet earths climate! Show me how.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 2, 2015 19:12:16 GMT
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), 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. 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?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 2, 2015 19:20:04 GMT
So a pea at an infinite distance has a large impact? I think not. The impact of orbiting planets may be real but putting them further out can only make their influence from a tidal impact perspective less. Somehow the distant galaxies are the big story in the planet earths climate! Show me how. 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 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
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 2, 2015 20:17:17 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? I see Nautonnier ascribing that you did not believe in the wobble. But that seems to be what everybody was thinking when you invoked Svalgaard, the pea, and your confusion about the barycenter causing the tides. Perhaps you could point specifically to what Nautonnier is claiming as it seems you are conjuring it up by incorrectly reading between the lines. If thats too much to ask perhaps you could revisit the "pea" and tell us what the relevance of that example is to what is being discussed here. We are obviously all confused over what points you are trying to make, it would be nice to know what you are really thinking.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 2, 2015 20:31:12 GMT
]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 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 You seem to be the only one claiming that there is a positive link between the relative dislocation of the solar barycenter and the gravitational influence of the barycenter. But it was clear you believed in that link when you claimed the barycenter caused the tides, which you now say was incorrect. I have not seen anybody else here fall for that nonsense. You called Astromet a Barycentrist and I don't seem him claiming any direct unmodified connection between total influence and the diameter of the solarsystem's barycenter wobble. In fact he endorsed my comments rejecting that notion. Only you as far as I can see has attempted to name drop Svalgaard into whatever you were trying to prove with the pea theory.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 2, 2015 20:53:08 GMT
]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 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 You seem to be the only one claiming that there is a positive link between the relative dislocation of the solar barycenter and the gravitational influence of the barycenter. But it was clear you believed in that link when you claimed the barycenter caused the tides, which you now say was incorrect. I have not seen anybody else here fall for that nonsense. You called Astromet a Barycentrist and I don't seem him claiming any direct unmodified connection between total influence and the diameter of the solarsystem's barycenter wobble. In fact he endorsed my comments rejecting that notion. Only you as far as I can see has attempted to name drop Svalgaard into whatever you were trying to prove with the pea theory. Why not take it up with Nautonnier? He is claiming some kind of a climate influence created by huge forces, where he wrote that text in paragraphs that had the word barycenter in it. I have no idea what he is talking about. However since he thinks barycenters are important and linked to a paper talking about planets orbiting the barycenter I made some conclusions. The pea idea is only pointing out the stupidity of solar system barycentric planetary orbits. Since you seem to have a different style since we last met up, where you are demonstrably far more grown up and evidently far more scientifically literate you seem to be the ideal candidate to talk things over with Nautonnier
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 2, 2015 21:29:14 GMT
Why not take it up with Nautonnier? He is claiming some kind of a climate influence created by huge forces, where he wrote that text in paragraphs that had the word barycenter in it. I have no idea what he is talking about. However since he thinks barycenters are important and linked to a paper talking about planets orbiting the barycenter I made some conclusions. The pea idea is only pointing out the stupidity of solar system barycentric planetary orbits. Since you seem to have a different style since we last met up, where you are demonstrably far more grown up and evidently far more scientifically literate you seem to be the ideal candidate to talk things over with Nautonnier I haven't seen anybody suggest that the size of the wobble by itself has anything to do with anything except you when you claimed that the barycenter was the cause of the tides. I don't know what I am supposed to take up with Nautonnier because you have only offered up alleged strawmen about what you seem to think Nautonnier has claimed, or Astromet for that matter. Perhaps you can refer me to a single statement by either of them claiming what you now claim to be disputing so I can have some clue of what I should be taking up with Nautonnier.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 2, 2015 21:40:24 GMT
Why not take it up with Nautonnier? He is claiming some kind of a climate influence created by huge forces, where he wrote that text in paragraphs that had the word barycenter in it. I have no idea what he is talking about. However since he thinks barycenters are important and linked to a paper talking about planets orbiting the barycenter I made some conclusions. The pea idea is only pointing out the stupidity of solar system barycentric planetary orbits. Since you seem to have a different style since we last met up, where you are demonstrably far more grown up and evidently far more scientifically literate you seem to be the ideal candidate to talk things over with Nautonnier I haven't seen anybody suggest that the size of the wobble by itself has anything to do with anything except you when you claimed that the barycenter was the cause of the tides. I don't know what I am supposed to take up with Nautonnier because you have only offered up alleged strawmen about what you seem to think Nautonnier has claimed, or Astromet for that matter. Perhaps you can refer me to a single statement by either of them claiming what you now claim to be disputing so I can have some clue of what I should be taking up with Nautonnier. What you believe and what is true are different things. As is what you claim to be true and what you think is true. In September 2013 in response to Nautonnier, I was talking about the tiny planetary influences creating a tiny solar tide. This week I have been talking about tiny tides created by Jupiter, but if you want to be revert back to being a total fool by claiming I am too stupid to know the difference between a tide created by a planet and some mythical influence created by a none existant body known as a barycenter then you are free to behave like that. Only a few years ago you were baiting me endlessly with the same moronic trolling and i have no doubt you can carry on behaving like that for months to come all over again. Meanwhile for the record i have already drawn your attention to the revelevant text and you picked out some bits that suited you and claimed there was no problem to be seen there.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 2, 2015 22:03:08 GMT
So far....The only troll like behaviour I have witnessed in over a year on this forum. ....has been by yourself
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 2, 2015 22:06:27 GMT
So far....The only troll like behaviour I have witnessed in over a year on this forum. ....has been by yourself As far as I am concerned a troll is a time wasting liar. Ie their purpose is to waste the other persons time and they do this by lying. What is your definition?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 2, 2015 22:12:55 GMT
hat you believe and what is true are different things. As is what you claim to be true and what you think is true. In September 2013 in response to Nautonnier, I was talking about the tiny planetary influences creating a tiny solar tide. This week I have been talking about tiny tides created by Jupiter, but if you want to be revert back to being a total fool by claiming I am too stupid to know the difference between a tide created by a planet and some mythical influence created by a none existant body known as a barycenter then you are free to behave like that. Only a few years ago you were baiting me endlessly with the same moronic trolling and i have no doubt you can carry on behaving like that for months to come all over again. Meanwhile for the record i have already drawn your attention to the revelevant text and you picked out some bits that suited you and claimed there was no problem to be seen there. Well I will take your inability to clearly state the problem you are addressing as evidence that the problem has even disappeared from your perspective. . . .at least outside of your faulty recollections. Seems we are at one of those seminal moments of the difference between a blanket warming a cooling body versus merely slowing its cooling and warming its surface.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 2, 2015 22:18:53 GMT
hat you believe and what is true are different things. As is what you claim to be true and what you think is true. In September 2013 in response to Nautonnier, I was talking about the tiny planetary influences creating a tiny solar tide. This week I have been talking about tiny tides created by Jupiter, but if you want to be revert back to being a total fool by claiming I am too stupid to know the difference between a tide created by a planet and some mythical influence created by a none existant body known as a barycenter then you are free to behave like that. Only a few years ago you were baiting me endlessly with the same moronic trolling and i have no doubt you can carry on behaving like that for months to come all over again. Meanwhile for the record i have already drawn your attention to the revelevant text and you picked out some bits that suited you and claimed there was no problem to be seen there. Well I will take your inability to clearly state the problem you are addressing as evidence that the problem has even disappeared from your perspective. Obviously you know exactly what I am referring to. For the record there is an unanswered post on the other thread drawing attention to it where I first drew attention to it back in 2013 and all of the previous 2013 discussion is linked by the posts I have recently created.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 2, 2015 22:32:34 GMT
So far....The only troll like behaviour I have witnessed in over a year on this forum. ....has been by yourself As far as I am concerned a troll is a time wasting liar. Ie their purpose is to waste the other persons time and they do this by lying. What is your definition? I might suggest that a poster whose presence continuously disrupts the otherwise positive atmosphere of a forum by harassing others who otherwise cause no problems. ...that may be thought to be trolling...
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 2, 2015 22:44:52 GMT
As far as I am concerned a troll is a time wasting liar. Ie their purpose is to waste the other persons time and they do this by lying. What is your definition? I might suggest that a poster whose presence continuously disrupts the otherwise positive atmosphere of a forum by harassing others who otherwise cause no problems. ...that may be thought to be trolling... If you are happy to bask in the glory of group think then we see things differently. Meanwhile I noticed from your earlier comment you appear to be saying you believe planets will orbit around the solar systems center of mass? Otherwise known as a barycenter.
|
|