|
Post by acidohm on Jun 8, 2015 12:39:36 GMT
I have been reading these posts with interest as it's informative that this point is examined due to its relevance to some of the theories postulated on the forum.
I'd hate to say it tho. ..Andrew, I understand others but don't really follow where your coming from.
Perhaps clarify more clearly what you wish to point out?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 8, 2015 12:56:50 GMT
I have been reading these posts with interest as it's informative that this point is examined due to its relevance to some of the theories postulated on the forum. I'd hate to say it tho. ..Andrew, I understand others but don't really follow where your coming from. Perhaps clarify more clearly what you wish to point out? 1. Leif Svalgaard knows the Sun wobbles - the topic is totally uncontroversial 2. The planets do not orbit the Solar system barycenter - for the case of the Earth, the combined effect of Jupiters, Saturns Uranus Neptunes etc gravity is tiny compared to the gravity of the Sun. 3. Other than mm size tides there are no known planetary influences upon the Sun 4. Nautonnier and Icefisher seem to think Svalgaard is an idot or he is lying. Much of the time Icefisher is agreeing with me while telling me I am saying something different and declaring I am delusional. 5. The main point of difference appears to Icefishers belief the barycenter apparently says something strongly about gravitational influences, whereas when Newtons Gravity law is used in the barycenter picture and the law says gravity weakens at the cube of the distance, then the "barycentric effect" is much weaker.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 8, 2015 13:48:29 GMT
And at the end of it all the above proves/disproves what??
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 8, 2015 14:15:10 GMT
And at the end of it all the above proves/disproves what?? What do you mean?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 8, 2015 14:17:14 GMT
What do you wish to demonstrate by being right, does this reflect on the accuracy of climate forecasting?? Does it implicate on our understanding of global warming??
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 8, 2015 15:01:15 GMT
What do you wish to demonstrate by being right, does this reflect on the accuracy of climate forecasting?? Does it implicate on our understanding of global warming?? The theme here is the reputation of one of the foremost solar scientists in the world, namely Leif Svalgaard. If I am right the man is a giant in his field who is able to see things clearly in a way that few of us can even begin to imagine. If the others are right then Leif is just a disgusting con artist, and they are the people who are able to see things clearly in a way that few of us can even begin to imagine. At the end of the day if i am wrong, I will be the cause of the down fall of a con artist and the elevation of Nautonnier and Icefisher to super stardom status and if i am right nothing of consequence is changed.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 8, 2015 15:15:47 GMT
I Agree about the importance of correctly assessing the effects of processes when placing weight on these on our climate,
However I do not think people here are idiots or liars. ..I know you feel strongly about this subject but it is a really really tricky subject to get technical about. ..
Mostly this line of inquiry is currently causing confusion I think.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 8, 2015 20:22:14 GMT
If we change the thought experiment and place all of the planets in line on the same side of the Sun and exclude the Earth and place the Earth 90 degrees to the line and have a normal solar system but then stop the Earth, the Earth will not pass thru the barycenter. The gravitational pull is according to newtons gravity law where gravity weakens at the square of the distance so Jupiter Saturn Uranus, Neptune combined have less influence on the falling earth than Mercury and Venus combined. The situation is a bit complex because it takes 65 days for the Earth to hit the Sun. The Mars Jupiter Saturn etc force will be almost constant while the Suns force increases rapidly. There is though an almosts constant jupiter force upon the falling Earth of 0.0062% of the beginning Solar force but the constant jupiter force is only a bit less than the force venus would apply at impact if venus remained in line with Jupiter. Saturn and beyond only apply a very small force upon the falling Earth. >>In these binary systems there is no deviation of the barycenter. That animation shows the barycenter in a fixed position where the Frame Of Reference (FoR) is the BC. The BC is always in a fixed position for the FoR of the BC. Usually we have shown the BC with the FoR of the Sun. Its a nice thought experiment but I don't think one can use a thought experiment to conclude anything. Its important to note that the center of gravity is very close to the sun in relationship to earth so the angle formed by the barycenter and the center of the sun is only about a 1/2 of one degree under the conditions you outlined. Also this is as large as that offset can get on average the offset would be 1/4 degree. Further the offset starts at only 1/4 degree from the barycenter to a collision point with the sun (at the surface, since the total offset is from the center of the sun). The other planets may or may not have a diminishing effect on the earth as either they will be beginning to fall towards the center of gravity (mercury would collide first followed by venus) or they are going to be shortening the maximum offset of the barycenter to the earth via their orbital motion from the point of maximum offset (no matter if the rotation is towards or away from the falling earth.) For example Venus which has nearly the same impact on the sun as Jupiter will do a quarter orbit in 60 days either moving through the earths at least beginning angle of approach. This would reduce the beginning deviation, Mercury that competes an entire orbit in 88 days would travel to the opposite side of the sun in 44 days. Stopping these variations of influence and claiming its all diminishing is totally a violation of physics as it would require the introduction of additional forces into the system. Meanwhile the pull of the earth on the sun would be increasing, and vice versa, as a result the earth would have more tidal affects and acceleration on the sun than Jupiter as the earth moved inside of Venus' orbit (2.7 compared to 2.3). When earth moved inside of Mercury's orbit the tidal influence on the sun would be about 10 times that of Jupiter inducing more acceleration of the sun to the earth and vice versa. It is true that the center of mass is not identical to the center of gravity and the center of gravity may move as a result of the forces stopping the orbital motion of a planet and then the subsequent building of velocity and momentum as it falls. One might say at that point its not any longer an integral part of the solar system where all forces are balanced out. I think what goes to the heart of affects on the sun. In complex solar systems all the forces are only balanced out over the long term and that the introduction of out of balance conditions, while temporary and eventually offset, are having impacts on the physical bodies themselves. Svalgaard and other warmists like to argue that the magnetic/gravitational effects are negligible and cannot warm anything. But what they forget about is these warmists don't even understand feedbacks for CO2 much less for gravity or magnetics. The only reason CO2 feedbacks were limited to a factor of 3 was because they applied their greenhouse model to CO2 and found it came up short of observations by a factor of 3. If the feedback effect needed was a factor of a 1,000 thats what they would have used instead using the methodology they used. So maybe you can model these trajectories in your brain, all the more power to you. But you will need to produce an engineering model to argue the conclusions you are trying to argue as there is a lot more going on than just the earth falling into the sun and when the earth does arrive at the sun, because of the influence of the other planets it will not arrive perpendicular to the sun. Once you have an engineering model then you can state how far the earth would rotate around the sun before making impact. I would suggest using 2 planets of the same mass and distance from the sun to reduce complexity. But I will admit your thought experiment got me thinking more on this and it is possible that one cannot resolve a single center of gravity identical to a center of mass using multiple planets of different configurations and distances from the sun. I question that now as I did not use an engineering model either. I could do it fairly easily but its more time than I am willing to devote at the moment as it would require a bunch of looking up masses, distances from the sun and distances of planets from each other then plotting it all to scale and running the vector calculations and see if they converge. I think they would but I am not sure.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 8, 2015 21:11:19 GMT
If we change the thought experiment and place all of the planets in line on the same side of the Sun and exclude the Earth and place the Earth 90 degrees to the line and have a normal solar system but then stop the Earth, the Earth will not pass thru the barycenter. The gravitational pull is according to newtons gravity law where gravity weakens at the square of the distance so Jupiter Saturn Uranus, Neptune combined have less influence on the falling earth than Mercury and Venus combined. The situation is a bit complex because it takes 65 days for the Earth to hit the Sun. The Mars Jupiter Saturn etc force will be almost constant while the Suns force increases rapidly. There is though an almosts constant jupiter force upon the falling Earth of 0.0062% of the beginning Solar force but the constant jupiter force is only a bit less than the force venus would apply at impact if venus remained in line with Jupiter. Saturn and beyond only apply a very small force upon the falling Earth. >>In these binary systems there is no deviation of the barycenter. That animation shows the barycenter in a fixed position where the Frame Of Reference (FoR) is the BC. The BC is always in a fixed position for the FoR of the BC. Usually we have shown the BC with the FoR of the Sun. Its a nice thought experiment but I don't think one can use a thought experiment to conclude anything. Its important to note that the center of gravity is very close to the sun in relationship to earth so the angle formed by the barycenter and the center of the sun is only about a 1/2 of one degree under the conditions you outlined. Also this is as large as that offset can get on average the offset would be 1/4 degree. Further the offset starts at only 1/4 degree from the barycenter to a collision point with the sun (at the surface, since the total offset is from the center of the sun). The other planets may or may not have a diminishing effect on the earth as either they will be beginning to fall towards the center of gravity (mercury would collide first followed by venus) or they are going to be shortening the maximum offset of the barycenter to the earth via their orbital motion from the point of maximum offset (no matter if the rotation is towards or away from the falling earth.) For example Venus which has nearly the same impact on the sun as Jupiter will do a quarter orbit in 60 days either moving through the earths at least beginning angle of approach. This would reduce the beginning deviation, Mercury that competes an entire orbit in 88 days would travel to the opposite side of the sun in 44 days. Stopping these variations of influence and claiming its all diminishing is totally a violation of physics as it would require the introduction of additional forces into the system. Meanwhile the pull of the earth on the sun would be increasing, and vice versa, as a result the earth would have more tidal affects and acceleration on the sun than Jupiter as the earth moved inside of Venus' orbit (2.7 compared to 2.3). When earth moved inside of Mercury's orbit the tidal influence on the sun would be about 10 times that of Jupiter inducing more acceleration of the sun to the earth and vice versa. It is true that the center of mass is not identical to the center of gravity and the center of gravity may move as a result of the forces stopping the orbital motion of a planet and then the subsequent building of velocity and momentum as it falls. One might say at that point its not any longer an integral part of the solar system where all forces are balanced out. I think what goes to the heart of affects on the sun. In complex solar systems all the forces are only balanced out over the long term and that the introduction of out of balance conditions, while temporary and eventually offset, are having impacts on the physical bodies themselves. Svalgaard and other warmists like to argue that the magnetic/gravitational effects are negligible and cannot warm anything. But what they forget about is these warmists don't even understand feedbacks for CO2 much less for gravity or magnetics. The only reason CO2 feedbacks were limited to a factor of 3 was because they applied their greenhouse model to CO2 and found it came up short of observations by a factor of 3. If the feedback effect needed was a factor of a 1,000 thats what they would have used instead using the methodology they used. So maybe you can model these trajectories in your brain, all the more power to you. But you will need to produce an engineering model to argue the conclusions you are trying to argue as there is a lot more going on than just the earth falling into the sun and when the earth does arrive at the sun, because of the influence of the other planets it will not arrive perpendicular to the sun. Once you have an engineering model then you can state how far the earth would rotate around the sun before making impact. I would suggest using 2 planets of the same mass and distance from the sun to reduce complexity. But I will admit your thought experiment got me thinking more on this and it is possible that one cannot resolve a single center of gravity identical to a center of mass using multiple planets of different configurations and distances from the sun. I question that now as I did not use an engineering model either. I could do it fairly easily but its more time than I am willing to devote at the moment as it would require a bunch of looking up masses, distances from the sun and distances of planets from each other then plotting it all to scale and running the vector calculations and see if they converge. I think they would but I am not sure. OK so we seem to be on the same page that the barycenter is not so directly related to "the center of gravity". I will try and find out where the center of gravity is for the most extreme case.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 8, 2015 21:20:17 GMT
What do you wish to demonstrate by being right, does this reflect on the accuracy of climate forecasting?? Does it implicate on our understanding of global warming?? The theme here is the reputation of one of the foremost solar scientists in the world, namely Leif Svalgaard. If I am right the man is a giant in his field who is able to see things clearly in a way that few of us can even begin to imagine. If the others are right then Leif is just a disgusting con artist, and they are the people who are able to see things clearly in a way that few of us can even begin to imagine. At the end of the day if i am wrong, I will be the cause of the down fall of a con artist and the elevation of Nautonnier and Icefisher to super stardom status and if i am right nothing of consequence is changed. Talking about over dramatization! No need to put Leif on a pedestal. Most of us if not all have great respect for his knowledge of the sun. You can see how the planet is orbiting both the barycenter and the sun at the same time (the distance from neither ever changes). So simply tossing in the fact that the planet orbits the sun after Thomson said it orbited the barycenter didn't add much if anything. By suggesting that Thomson was confusing people earned him at a minimum some obfuscation points from me. Here you are suggesting he had something quite insightful to say. What was his point Andrew? That he is a God? That seems to be all you are taking away from it. I see no need for you defend Leif. I am sure we would all welcome him moving cross forum or starting one in his owns where he fleshed out his point, if he had one.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 8, 2015 21:43:45 GMT
OK so we seem to be on the same page that the barycenter is not so directly related to "the center of gravity". I will try and find out where the center of gravity is for the most extreme case. Rocket scientists designing orbiting space craft have to deal with some of the variables when putting up articulated satellites and satellites they want to assume certain orientations. Torque is one forcing that can move the center of mass from the center of gravity. If torque is resulting from planet shape deformities or other factors in our solar system, or out of balance conditions (like earth stopping dead in its orbit and falling to the center of gravity. That seems to be even more supportive of a mechanism for solar or climate changes than if there were none. Perhaps Leif is suggesting there are none because there is no variation on planet orbits around the sun. But thats not scientific you cannot prove anything by that. And that would suggest Leif is not a God. If Leif were indeed the omniscient God you think he is, he would not have any trouble expressing what he really meant and we would all hear and understand the good word. And I am sure he is very welcome to write more about it if its at all important to him. In the meantime I see your excuse for attacking Nautonnier on an alleged impugnment of Leif's reputation to be the typical excuse of a drama queen.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 8, 2015 22:26:52 GMT
Everything is moving and never in balance. There are always opposing forces.
What effect does this have on climate? There are papers posted in an old thread on this board, dealing with magnetic field changes that correspond with climate changes
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 8, 2015 23:22:22 GMT
Everything is moving and never in balance. There are always opposing forces. What effect does this have on climate? There are papers posted in an old thread on this board, dealing with magnetic field changes that correspond with climate changes Yes we don't know. One only has to review some of the inventions of Tesla to begin to comprehend how improbable electro-magnetics can operate. Tesla was an amazing talent with great vision.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 8, 2015 23:25:07 GMT
The theme here is the reputation of one of the foremost solar scientists in the world, namely Leif Svalgaard. If I am right the man is a giant in his field who is able to see things clearly in a way that few of us can even begin to imagine. If the others are right then Leif is just a disgusting con artist, and they are the people who are able to see things clearly in a way that few of us can even begin to imagine. At the end of the day if i am wrong, I will be the cause of the down fall of a con artist and the elevation of Nautonnier and Icefisher to super stardom status and if i am right nothing of consequence is changed. Talking about over dramatization! No need to put Leif on a pedestal. Most of us if not all have great respect for his knowledge of the sun. You can see how the planet is orbiting both the barycenter and the sun at the same time (the distance from neither ever changes). So simply tossing in the fact that the planet orbits the sun after Thomson said it orbited the barycenter didn't add much if anything. By suggesting that Thomson was confusing people earned him at a minimum some obfuscation points from me. Here you are suggesting he had something quite insightful to say. What was his point Andrew? That he is a God? That seems to be all you are taking away from it. I see no need for you defend Leif. I am sure we would all welcome him moving cross forum or starting one in his owns where he fleshed out his point, if he had one. The point here is that the earth orbits the sun more or less, It does not orbit the SSBC. Thomson was wrong. Leif was more right.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 9, 2015 1:13:30 GMT
Talking about over dramatization! No need to put Leif on a pedestal. Most of us if not all have great respect for his knowledge of the sun. You can see how the planet is orbiting both the barycenter and the sun at the same time (the distance from neither ever changes). So simply tossing in the fact that the planet orbits the sun after Thomson said it orbited the barycenter didn't add much if anything. By suggesting that Thomson was confusing people earned him at a minimum some obfuscation points from me. Here you are suggesting he had something quite insightful to say. What was his point Andrew? That he is a God? That seems to be all you are taking away from it. I see no need for you defend Leif. I am sure we would all welcome him moving cross forum or starting one in his owns where he fleshed out his point, if he had one. The point here is that the earth orbits the sun more or less, It does not orbit the SSBC. Thomson was wrong. Leif was more right. Thats simply wrong and denial of the force and effect of gravity on frictionless bodies. You are saying the other planets have zero influence on earth's orbit its a denial of well known physics! The barycenter is in fact calculated on the basis of those effects so by definition it is well known that the earth does orbit the barycenter on every orbit. What Svalgaard had to say could be completely true also. But he did not say that the earth does not orbit the barycenter and Thomson did not say that the earth did not orbit the sun. Without one of the two making such a claim one cannot be more right than the other on this topic. Nice try Andrew but no cigar!
|
|