|
Post by Andrew on Jun 9, 2015 6:33:14 GMT
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. You are saying the other planets have zero influence on earth's orbit its a denial of well known physics! I am not saying that.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 9, 2015 23:04:32 GMT
Icefisher, I am no longer sure what this conversation has been about.
Nautonnier said Svalgaard was saying the Sun does not go around the SSBC? Whereas I said the topic was totally uncontroversial.
I might have muddied the waters by a huge amount by saying the Earth was not orbiting the SSBC but instead orbited the Sun. I am still struggling to say the Earth orbits the SSBC but for sure the Earth and Suns BC orbits the SSBC!!
I just can no longer understand what we were disagreeing on! Other than Nautonnier was mixed up.
I did a calculation by how much a stationary Earth would fall towards Jupiter before it hit the Sun and found it moved 3,300km towards Jupiter. At the same time though with the great distance Jupiter is from the Sun and the Earth the Sun is also falling towards Jupiter at a similar rate.
Are you able to sum up what we disagree on?
Edit: It seems we do have a significant disagreement because of this from thomson
>The Sun orbits the center of the solar system the same as the planets do.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 9, 2015 23:53:57 GMT
Icefisher, I am no longer sure what this conversation has been about. Nautonnier said Svalgaard was saying the Sun does not go around the SSBC? Whereas I said the topic was totally uncontroversial. I might have muddied the waters by a huge amount by saying the Earth was not orbiting the SSBC but instead orbited the Sun. I am still struggling to say the Earth orbits the SSBC but for sure the Earth and Suns BC orbits the SSBC!! I just can no longer understand what we were disagreeing on! Other than Nautonnier was mixed up. I did a calculation by how much a stationary Earth would fall towards Jupiter before it hit the Sun and found it moved 3,300km towards Jupiter. At the same time though with the great distance Jupiter is from the Sun and the Earth the Sun is also falling towards Jupiter at a similar rate. Are you able to sum up what we disagree on? Edit: It seems we do have a significant disagreement because of this from thomson >The Sun orbits the center of the solar system the same as the planets do.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 10, 2015 1:33:44 GMT
Icefisher, I am no longer sure what this conversation has been about. Nautonnier said Svalgaard was saying the Sun does not go around the SSBC? Whereas I said the topic was totally uncontroversial. I might have muddied the waters by a huge amount by saying the Earth was not orbiting the SSBC but instead orbited the Sun. I am still struggling to say the Earth orbits the SSBC but for sure the Earth and Suns BC orbits the SSBC!! I just can no longer understand what we were disagreeing on! Other than Nautonnier was mixed up. I did a calculation by how much a stationary Earth would fall towards Jupiter before it hit the Sun and found it moved 3,300km towards Jupiter. At the same time though with the great distance Jupiter is from the Sun and the Earth the Sun is also falling towards Jupiter at a similar rate. Are you able to sum up what we disagree on? Edit: It seems we do have a significant disagreement because of this from thomson >The Sun orbits the center of the solar system the same as the planets do. Have I missed something? Just a record of my post for some reason??
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 10, 2015 1:46:59 GMT
I have said several times that each of the planets and the sun orbits the barycenter. Each orbit is perturbed in a different way. Never or at least for any practical purpose never is the sun or the barycenter actually the center of an individual orbit. Only over the long haul do you find a common center and it would be both. I see no controversy in that.
So what is the relevance of all this? In that way we can find the most important concept regarding orbits, namely a common frame of reference!
Well there are two primary questions on the table Andrew. What effects climate and what effects solar cycles and is it the same thing. Well in that frame of refernce and in the thread that Svalgaard was responding to we are asking what is it that creates climate phases and what is that creates the solar cycles? That is what the WUWT thread was all about Andrew.
So which orbit cycle are we concerned about in this discussion about statements made in that thread on WUWT? We are concerned with climate change phases which has been defined by many scientists including leading authors of the IPCC assessment reports as being greater than 17 years. And we are concerned about solar cycles which tend to vary between 10 and 13 years.
So in that frame of reference I see no significance in the argument of whether the earth orbits the sun or the barycenter.
Its pure obfuscation! Nobody has claimed climate effects for the earths orbit beyond the seasonal changes seen each year due to the elliptical nature of earths orbit and the tilt of its axis. That was not being discussed in the climate change thread. So why did Svalgaard bring it into to the discussion? And should be he honored for doing so? Set on a pedestal? I have given you my answer Andrew and it seems we have some dispute about that. Anyway thats my take succinctly stated. What is yours?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 10, 2015 2:04:06 GMT
I have said several times that each of the planets and the sun orbits the barycenter. Each orbit is perturbed in a different way. Never or at least for any practical purpose never is the sun or the barycenter actually the center of an individual orbit. Only over the long haul do you find a common center and it would be both. I see no controversy in that. So what is the relevance of all this? In that way we can find the most important concept regarding orbits, namely a common frame of reference! Well there are two primary questions on the table Andrew. What effects climate and what effects solar cycles and is it the same thing. Well in that frame of refernce and in the thread that Svalgaard was responding to we are asking what is it that creates climate phases and what is that creates the solar cycles? That is what the WUWT thread was all about Andrew. So which orbit cycle are we concerned about in this discussion about statements made in that thread on WUWT? We are concerned with climate change phases which has been defined by many scientists including leading authors of the IPCC assessment reports as being greater than 17 years. And we are concerned about solar cycles which tend to vary between 10 and 13 years. So in that frame of reference I see no significance in the argument of whether the earth orbits the sun or the barycenter. Its pure obfuscation! Nobody has claimed climate effects for the earths orbit beyond the seasonal changes seen each year due to the elliptical nature of earths orbit and the tilt of its axis. That was not being discussed in the climate change thread. So why did Svalgaard bring it into to the discussion? And should be he honored for doing so? Set on a pedestal? I have given you my answer Andrew and it seems we have some dispute about that. Anyway thats my take succinctly stated. What is yours? I cannot understand what you are saying. This Thread is called 'Confusions created by Barycenters', the other threads were called the Suns influence and barycenter arithmetic. You and I have been having a ferocious argument about something and it has never been clear to me what you are arguing for other than you are arguing against me in a very determined manner, where often you say i am saying things i am not. Thomson said the planets orbit the SSBC. Svalgaard said they did not both by theory and by observation. You earlier said that what Thomson said was totally true therefore Svalgaard must be lying, when in fact Thomsons text had two significant errors. >>I have said several times that each of the planets and the sun orbits the barycenter. So you agree with Thomson? If Svalgaard had wanted to avoid the obfuscation he could have by saying what Thomson said about the barycenter was correct?? Thomson was wrong. by theory and by observation the planets do not orbit the ssbc The planets orbit the sun, the sun orbits the barycenter (you agreed with all that, I think Yes the planets orbit the sun the sun orbits the barycenter so Thomson was wrong and Leif was not lying.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 10, 2015 2:41:33 GMT
Thomson replied to Carston who said the SSBC was not a real thing. Thomson wants it to be a thing that draws matter towards it. Leif correctly said Thomson was confused.
David Thomson September 7, 2013 at 5:55 pm
"Carsten Arnholm says: September 7, 2013 at 4:53 pm The barycenter is not “solar”. The Barycenter is the center of mass of the solar system. It is not physical in any other way. It cannot “act” on the core of the Sun, being it solid or not. In fact the barycenter cannot act on anything…"
Thomson: the center of the solar system is not at the center of the Sun, then why would you not think the Sun would be gravitationally moved? The Sun has no choice, except to be pulled toward the center of the solar system’s gravity. The Sun orbits the center of the solar system the same as the planets do."
Thomson is totally muddled up.
Nautonnier thinks Svalgaard is saying the Sun is not orbiting a SSBC
You are defending Thomson and Nautonnier and attacking me and Leif.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 10, 2015 4:45:20 GMT
Thomson replied to Carston who said the SSBC was not a real thing. Thomson wants it to be a thing that draws matter towards it. Leif correctly said Thomson was confused. David Thomson September 7, 2013 at 5:55 pm "Carsten Arnholm says: September 7, 2013 at 4:53 pm The barycenter is not “solar”. The Barycenter is the center of mass of the solar system. It is not physical in any other way. It cannot “act” on the core of the Sun, being it solid or not. In fact the barycenter cannot act on anything…" Thomson: the center of the solar system is not at the center of the Sun, then why would you not think the Sun would be gravitationally moved? T he Sun has no choice, except to be pulled toward the center of the solar system’s gravity. The Sun orbits the center of the solar system the same as the planets do." Thomson is totally muddled up. Nautonnier thinks Svalgaard is saying the Sun is not orbiting a SSBC You are defending Thomson and Nautonnier and attacking me and Leif. I am afraid it is you who is muddled up Andrew. Seems you can't find what the dispute is. The topic has been that the sun is pulled to the barycenter and that this motion through magnetic fields is the cause of changes in solar activity. Svalgaard is in dispute with that theory, which is fine. Do you think he scored a useful point Andrew? If so why? Hopefully you understand the issue well enough to say more than "Thomson was wrong"
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 10, 2015 7:09:42 GMT
Thomson replied to Carston who said the SSBC was not a real thing. Thomson wants it to be a thing that draws matter towards it. Leif correctly said Thomson was confused. David Thomson September 7, 2013 at 5:55 pm "Carsten Arnholm says: September 7, 2013 at 4:53 pm The barycenter is not “solar”. The Barycenter is the center of mass of the solar system. It is not physical in any other way. It cannot “act” on the core of the Sun, being it solid or not. In fact the barycenter cannot act on anything…" Thomson: the center of the solar system is not at the center of the Sun, then why would you not think the Sun would be gravitationally moved? T he Sun has no choice, except to be pulled toward the center of the solar system’s gravity. The Sun orbits the center of the solar system the same as the planets do." Thomson is totally muddled up. Nautonnier thinks Svalgaard is saying the Sun is not orbiting a SSBC You are defending Thomson and Nautonnier and attacking me and Leif. I am afraid it is you who is muddled up Andrew. Seems you can't find what the dispute is. The topic has been that the sun is pulled to the barycenter and that this motion through magnetic fields is the cause of changes in solar activity. Svalgaard is in dispute with that theory, which is fine. Do you think he scored a useful point Andrew? If so why? Hopefully you understand the issue well enough to say more than "Thomson was wrong" Are you now agreeing the following is not true? 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. Likewise this: Thomson said: >>The Sun has no choice, except to be pulled toward the center of the solar system’s gravity. The barycenter is a mathematical sumation of all the gravity force vectors converging on a single point. If the planets were frozen in space the sun would move to the barycenter. Earlier I several times wanted you to focus on the following but I never saw you agreed it was not true You don't understand what a Barycenter is..... anything outside of that point is attracted to it like a magnet. With the above in mind what are you saying in the following? I have said several times that each of the planets and the sun orbits the barycenter. Each orbit is perturbed in a different way. Never or at least for any practical purpose never is the sun or the barycenter actually the center of an individual orbit. Only over the long haul do you find a common center and it would be both. I see no controversy in that. Have we now established you no longer believe the SSBC is the "center of the solar system's gravity"? and therefore David Thomson was majorly confused and Leif was not lying?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 11, 2015 6:31:26 GMT
No the only confusion I am guilty of is not barycenter confusion but Andrew confusion. This is typical of a conversation with you. You come in and make stupid incorrect remarks about a topic and somebody corrects you. Next you are off on an entirely different topic a topic that is so irrelevant and remote that it takes a while before anybody gets what your new line of argument is. No I do not disagree with anything Thomson says and I don't care one iota if the suns dancing around the barycenter is technically an orbit or not.
It goes around it as do all the planets. Early on I pointed out to you when it appeared you knew nothing about barycenters that the pea example was ludicrous and entirely irrelevant. So for some bizarre reason you thought there was great relevance to a new earth being placed a few light years from the sun which is another entirely ludicrous statement. You are obviously a google search learner and facts dawn on you slowly. So you almost always end up diverting a conversation down some irrelevant point as you search for something totally irrelevant you could possibly be correct upon.
Now I finally get what ignorant totally irrelevant meaningless point you are making and its exactly the same point I explained to you a long time ago in this conversation as to why the "pea" example was totally irrelevant and off topic, namely that the barycenter the pea would technically orbit around is not a full representation of the impact of a barycenter on a solar system at any point in time, namely that a large barycenter offset does not mean a large impact because there was a matter of orbit period that when factored in would demonstrate true impact.
In the pea example I explained that the orbit period would be so long so as the first protozoa on earth would not be old enough today to have seen even one degree of its orbit rotation. So you took that to mean there might be a point to all this you could attribute as both being relevant (a necessary condition for the discussion to even be on topic) and whether such an effect would be "technically" considered to be an orbit in the simplist example of the technical description of a planet or moon circling another mass in the solar system. Of course it would not be Andrew. When the first technical description of an orbit was made, I don't know when, nobody knew anything about barycenters so obviously barycenter orbits would not be technically identical to the traditional scientific concept of what an orbit is.
In common language if an object consistently goes around another point as a result of gravitational forces its an orbit. Now granted that definition may not be the "technical" definition of an orbit made by I don't know who maybe Plato or somebody.
There is a real difference there. The solar systems apparent orbit around the galaxy center mass, which is a term commonly used in science Andrew!!!, is also technically not an orbit in classical physics because and only because that definition was made in the age of ignorance,
So now after I explained to you the non-significance of the peas barycenter offset taken by itself you have turned it around and in typical Andrew meaningless, irrelevant ways now claim that's why you thought Thomson was wrong and Nautonnier and myself were wrong to be saying anything about Svalgaards irrelevant and meaningless distinction that he inserted into a conversation about climate change.
You will go to any length to try to find a thread hanging loose you will yank upon to avoid admitting that Svalgaards comments were what were confusing, not Thomsons even if Svalgaard had a dusty astronomy book in his library that could be claimed to be a more technical meaningful use of a word.
So I noted once again you continue to pound this irrelevant definition of an orbit despite the wide spread use in the ENTIRE TOTAL science community that use the term for more than that old dusty original use of the term. Obviously the two definitions are not identical just like was explained to you that the size and length of the pea's barycenter offset was not important.
But please if you want to continue this moronic exercise in out of date linguistics of the science community please start out by explaining what is so darned relevant about it.
Finally,
"Have we now established you no longer believe the SSBC is the "center of the solar system's gravity"? and therefore David Thomson was majorly confused and Leif was not lying?"
No we have not. I am not aware of a single accusation of Leif lying and very clearly Thomson was not confused in his comments about the center of the solar systems gravity. Whether he believed that any given point in time the SSBC was identical to the solar systems center of gravity, I have not seen any such comment. Perhaps this is one of those figments of your imagination like your claim that Nautonnier said Leif said that the sun does not wobble. As I have told you repeatedly the SSBC only becomes the solar systems center of gravity upon the completion of all permutations of plant positions relative to each other. That is a concept identical to the science communities statements regarding the solar system orbiting the center of gravity of the galaxy and the fact that concept is not identical to a simple orbit of the earth and the moon does not make the science community wrong about the solar system orbiting the galaxy.
As far as you go it would be nice for you to make some shred of an attempt at honestly making an effort to keep your comments relevant to the topic at hand.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jun 11, 2015 6:42:16 GMT
I thought it had stopped but well said.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 11, 2015 7:00:33 GMT
No the only confusion I am guilty of is not barycenter confusion but Andrew confusion. This is typical of a conversation with you. You come in and make stupid incorrect remarks about a topic and somebody corrects you. Next you are off on an entirely different topic a topic that is so irrelevant and remote that it takes a while before anybody gets what your new line of argument is. No I do not disagree with anything Thomson says and I don't care one iota if the suns dancing around the barycenter is technically an orbit or not. It goes around it as do all the planets. Early on I pointed out to you when it appeared you knew nothing about barycenters that the pea example was ludicrous and entirely irrelevant. So for some bizarre reason you thought there was great relevance to a new earth being placed a few light years from the sun which is another entirely ludicrous statement. You are obviously a google search learner and facts dawn on you slowly. So you almost always end up diverting a conversation down some irrelevant point as you search for something totally irrelevant you could possibly be correct upon. Now I finally get what ignorant totally irrelevant meaningless point you are making and its exactly the same point I explained to you a long time ago in this conversation as to why the "pea" example was totally irrelevant and off topic, namely that the barycenter the pea would technically orbit around is not a full representation of the impact of a barycenter on a solar system at any point in time, namely that a large barycenter offset does not mean a large impact because there was a matter of orbit period that when factored in would demonstrate true impact. In the pea example I explained that the orbit period would be so long so as the first protozoa on earth would not be old enough today to have seen even one degree of its orbit rotation. So you took that to mean there might be a point to all this you could attribute as both being relevant (a necessary condition for the discussion to even be on topic) and whether such an effect would be "technically" considered to be an orbit in the simplist example of the technical description of a planet or moon circling another mass in the solar system. Of course it would not be Andrew. When the first technical description of an orbit was made, I don't know when, nobody knew anything about barycenters so obviously barycenter orbits would not be technically identical to the traditional scientific concept of what an orbit is. In common language if an object consistently goes around another point as a result of gravitational forces its an orbit. Now granted that definition may not be the "technical" definition of an orbit made by I don't know who maybe Plato or somebody. There is a real difference there. The solar systems apparent orbit around the galaxy center mass, which is a term commonly used in science Andrew!!!, is also technically not an orbit in classical physics because and only because that definition was made in the age of ignorance, So now after I explained to you the non-significance of the peas barycenter offset taken by itself you have turned it around and in typical Andrew meaningless, irrelevant ways now claim that's why you thought Thomson was wrong and Nautonnier and myself were wrong to be saying anything about Svalgaards irrelevant and meaningless distinction that he inserted into a conversation about climate change. You will go to any length to try to find a thread hanging loose you will yank upon to avoid admitting that Svalgaards comments were what were confusing, not Thomsons even if Svalgaard had a dusty astronomy book in his library that could be claimed to be a more technical meaningful use of a word. So I noted once again you continue to pound this irrelevant definition of an orbit despite the wide spread use in the ENTIRE TOTAL science community that use the term for more than that old dusty original use of the term. Obviously the two definitions are not identical just like was explained to you that the size and length of the pea's barycenter offset was not important. But please if you want to continue this moronic exercise in out of date linguistics of the science community please start out by explaining what is so darned relevant about it. Finally, "Have we now established you no longer believe the SSBC is the "center of the solar system's gravity"? and therefore David Thomson was majorly confused and Leif was not lying?" No we have not. I am not aware of a single accusation of Leif lying and very clearly Thomson was not confused in his comments about the center of the solar systems gravity. Whether he believed that any given point in time the SSBC was identical to the solar systems center of gravity, I have not seen any such comment. Perhaps this is one of those figments of your imagination like your claim that Nautonnier said Leif said that the sun does not wobble. As I have told you repeatedly the SSBC only becomes the solar systems center of gravity upon the completion of all permutations of plant positions relative to each other. That is a concept identical to the science communities statements regarding the solar system orbiting the center of gravity of the galaxy and the fact that concept is not identical to a simple orbit of the earth and the moon does not make the science community wrong about the solar system orbiting the galaxy. As far as you go it would be nice for you to make some shred of an attempt at honestly making an effort to keep your comments relevant to the topic at hand. Now to go one step further if we can discard the significance of any you have said up to this point (pending any argument of its significance of course) is this sun orbiting the barycenter concept might be too weak to explain solar activity, thats really Leif's contention but it appears he has no significant argument to address that point, or alternative theory he can point to that has enabled him to correctly predict the intensity of solar cycles, the intensity of which is being linked to climate change. The one good argument I have seen Leif make to point is not direct but more a criticism of people trying to create the link, like astrologists. His criticism here is a good one. homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/solarsystem_barycenter.pdfIcefisher Obfuscation is a deliberate muddying of the waters and so you accused Leif of lying and you did this repeatedly. Please tell me if you think the following is true: You don't understand what a Barycenter is..... anything outside of that point is attracted to it like a magnet.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 11, 2015 8:33:22 GMT
Icefisher Obfuscation is a deliberate muddying of the waters and so you accused Leif of lying and you did this repeatedly. Wrong. Obfuscation has nothing to do with lying. In fact when one lies they lie. When one obfuscates they intend to confuse usually by making meaningless, or irrelevant, or hairsplitting, or off topic points intentionally designed to disrupt understanding of a theory. The result when successful is to confuse people and it is important to have some grain of truth in it to enable the whole thing to go on confusing almost endlessly until somebody steps in and exposes the scam. Its akin to lying but its more closely related to trolling. So yes Leif probably was not confused. He understands well what Thomson was saying. He did not even claim Thomson was muddled up. He did not claim that Thomson was lying. He did not even claim that the theory of solar variation via planetary movement being espoused by Thomson had been proven wrong. He merely said that Thomson said something that was confusing and then stated he used the word "orbit" in a non-conventional way. Perhaps Leif is unskilled in linguistics and believes what he said about the use of the word orbit. Perhaps particularily in Leif's single celestial body world the only "technical" definition of an orbit is the one he was talking about. Perhaps even there is no official written up and blessed technical definition of masses of celestial bodies orbiting a common center mass. But I majored for a time in linguistics in college because of a strong interest in it but eventually abandoned the major because of the lack of career opportunities that I found interesting. A common malady of college students meandering through college without a clear plan. What I did learn is there is no static definition for a word. The science community talks of the solar system orbiting the galaxy center mass but this use of the word is exactly identical to what Leif was complaining about in Thomson's use of the word. Perhaps that fact escaped Leif's thoughts when he made the comment. I don't know if it were ignorance of linguistics, lie or fact if there is or is not a study somewhere that uses the term in the modern sense as opposed to the classic astronomy sense. I don't know where Leif got his education either. So I did not accuse him of lying. Though it is possible he was. So now in your eyes Leif is smarter than the entire universe of scientists? You have no idea of what the human language is all about. There is no grand arbiter of language in the world of science there are only some common agreements between science on certain words and there are words that used differently in different specialties. But I am certain that Leif knew his point was minor and probably irrelevant. Language is constantly evolving and the best definition of a word is the most commonly used definition which is not Leif's definition in this case. He was not lying but he was confounding the issue with a true point that he knew was not a good argument against the theory Thomson was espousing. So was he trolling in that thread? Probably not because troll is defined as one that will introduce an irrelevant point then run it into the ground for the purpose of attracting attention to himself. That better defines you. Does a barycenter attract stuff like a magnet? No not precisely that was a poor example to use on my part. Its apt to unintentionally confuse some and envigor trolls. It does so only in a timeless sense, on average it does but there are limits to how you can use a barycenter concept other than in the sense everything in the system orbits around it because of the combined magnetic affects of the bodies in the system. Its exactly akin to the theory of planetary movement changing magnetic fields which in turn may cause solar activity to change so in a limited sense only is it like a magnet. Are you going to once again run away from a discussion of the real discussion?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 11, 2015 9:00:18 GMT
Icefisher Obfuscation is a deliberate muddying of the waters and so you accused Leif of lying and you did this repeatedly. Wrong. Obfuscation has nothing to do with lying. In fact when one lies they lie. When one obfuscates they intend to confuse usually by making meaningless, or irrelevant, or hairsplitting, or off topic points intentionally designed to disrupt understanding of a theory. The result when successful is to confuse people and it is important to have some grain of truth in it to enable the whole thing to go on confusing almost endlessly until somebody steps in and exposes the scam. Its akin to lying but its more closely related to trolling. So yes Leif probably was not confused. He understands well what Thomson was saying. He did not even claim Thomson was muddled up. He did not claim that Thomson was lying. He did not even claim that the theory of solar variation via planetary movement being espoused by Thomson had been proven wrong. He merely said that Thomson said something that was confusing and then stated he used the word "orbit" in a non-conventional way. Perhaps Leif is unskilled in linguistics and believes what he said about the use of the word orbit. Perhaps particularily in Leif's single celestial body world the only "technical" definition of an orbit is the one he was talking about. Perhaps even there is no official written up and blessed technical definition of masses of celestial bodies orbiting a common center mass. But I majored for a time in linguistics in college because of a strong interest in it but eventually abandoned the major because of the lack of career opportunities that I found interesting. A common malady of college students meandering through college without a clear plan. What I did learn is there is no static definition for a word. The science community talks of the solar system orbiting the galaxy center mass but this use of the word is exactly identical to what Leif was complaining about in Thomson's use of the word. Perhaps that fact escaped Leif's thoughts when he made the comment. I don't know if it were ignorance of linguistics, lie or fact if there is or is not a study somewhere that uses the term in the modern sense as opposed to the classic astronomy sense. I don't know where Leif got his education either. So I did not accuse him of lying. Though it is possible he was. So now in your eyes Leif is smarter than the entire universe of scientists? You have no idea of what the human language is all about. There is no grand arbiter of language in the world of science there are only some common agreements between science on certain words and there are words that used differently in different specialties. But I am certain that Leif knew his point was minor and probably irrelevant. Language is constantly evolving and the best definition of a word is the most commonly used definition which is not Leif's definition in this case. He was not lying but he was confounding the issue with a true point that he knew was not a good argument against the theory Thomson was espousing. So was he trolling in that thread? Probably not because troll is defined as one that will introduce an irrelevant point then run it into the ground for the purpose of attracting attention to himself. That better defines you. Does a barycenter attract stuff like a magnet? No not precisely that was a poor example to use on my part. Its apt to unintentionally confuse some and envigor trolls. It does so only in a timeless sense, on average it does but there are limits to how you can use a barycenter concept other than in the sense everything in the system orbits around it because of the combined magnetic affects of the bodies in the system. Its exactly akin to the theory of planetary movement changing magnetic fields which in turn may cause solar activity to change so in a limited sense only is it like a magnet. Are you going to once again run away from a discussion of the real discussion? >>When one obfuscates they intend to confuse usually by making meaningless, or irrelevant, or hairsplitting, or off topic points intentionally designed to disrupt understanding of a theory. Please explain how Leif set out to intentionally confuse using meaningless, or irrelevant, or hairsplitting comments to disrupt understanding of a theory without lying. So have we now established you were muddled up when you made the " barycentric" comments and now you are no longer muddled? Thomson said: >>The Sun has no choice, except to be pulled toward the center of the solar system’s gravity. The barycenter is a mathematical sumation of all the gravity force vectors converging on a single point. If the planets were frozen in space the sun would move to the barycenter. >>Are you going to once again run away from a discussion of the real discussion? I have not run from anything, and neither have I lied about anything or obfuscated anything. The discussion focuses (now) on Nautonniers confusion about the solar system, where, for good reasons, the planets can only have an absolutely tiny effect on the Suns activity by any known mechanism. The earlier focus of the conversation was Nautonniers belief Leif did not know the Sun was wobbling, whereas every man and his dog knew planets caused other stars to wobble. Later it became apparent Nautonnier has some major disputes with Newton etc etc. During this discussion with you, you have constantly declared i am thinking something i am not, and by and large i have had no idea what you are thinking at all other than it sounds "barycentric" one moment and then not "barycentric" at another moment. >>Leif....was confounding the issue with a true point that he knew was not a good argument against the theory Thomson was espousing. The WUWT topic was the claim the planets cannot influence the Sun via some kind of "barycentric force". Thomson argued the barycenter could cause the Suns core to wobble more than the other nearer surface layers, "which would explain the mechanism of the Sun’s magnetohydrodynamics" However the simple truth is two hundred years ago Newton already knew that Thomsons argument was nonsense so the idea Leif is hiding something is totally daft.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 11, 2015 11:32:23 GMT
>>When one obfuscates they intend to confuse usually by making meaningless, or irrelevant, or hairsplitting, or off topic points intentionally designed to disrupt understanding of a theory. Please explain how Leif set out to intentionally confuse using meaningless, or irrelevant, or hairsplitting comments to disrupt understanding of a theory without lying. Leif in a conversation of the theory of solar variation being a product of the direction of movement of the sun which was constantly being changed by the sun orbiting the barycenter, Leif said he was confusing people because an orbit is technically something else. One cannot hardly get more irrelevant, hairsplitting, or meaningless because the term is used in the sense used by Thomson by the astronomy community in general. So have we now established you were muddled up when you made the " barycentric" comments and now you are no longer muddled? You mean I myself potentially used an overly simplified analogy of a magnet that might confuse a moron so much so as to cause him to think the barycenter also caused the tides? Sure why not! I was momentarily muddled. At my age that happens a lot. I have not run from anything, and neither have I lied about anything or obfuscated anything. The discussion focuses (now) on Nautonniers confusion about the solar system, where, for good reasons, the planets can only have an absolutely tiny effect on the Suns activity by any known mechanism. Andrew if the mechanism were known we or anybody here would not be discussing it. Thats the purpose of the discussion, namely to talk about a mechanism maybe somebody should look for so it would become known. The earlier focus of the conversation was Nautonniers belief Leif did not know the Sun was wobbling, whereas every man and his dog knew planets caused other stars to wobble. Later it became apparent Nautonnier has some major disputes with Newton etc etc. hmmmm, it seems to me that if somebody claims the sun is not in an orbit (for whatever hairsplitting reason) one is effectively claiming our sun does not wobble because the science of astronomy has identified that stars with planets wobble because the planets cause the sun to move in an orbit. Seems like a reasonable conclusion that Svalgaard was saying our sun does not wobble Andrew. The fact that we know from other comments by Svalgaard that he knows the sun orbits the barycenter and that causes it to wobble is another matter entirely. You can blame Nautonniers perception of Svalgaard as reasonably caused by his Svalgaard's obfuscation. Keep in mind that confusion is the objective of obfuscation. Obviously in some respects he achieved his aim. Perhaps he thought (and certainly you thought) his credentials to be so impeccable the response would (should) not call him out. During this discussion with you, you have constantly declared i am thinking something i am not, and by and large i have had no idea what you are thinking at all other than it sounds "barycentric" one moment and then not "barycentric" at another moment. Could that because barycenters are not the cause of tides? That barycenters only describe the direction of the travel and not the speed of travel? Kind of like "one half of what a magnet is" instead of "what a magnet is". If so, I will apologize for using a poor analogy. And finally as to running away from what is relevant about all this. . . .what is relevant about all this?
|
|