|
Post by Andrew on Jun 11, 2015 11:37:37 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? Icefisher do you set out to obfuscate what you are talking about?? What the f.uck are you talking about??
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 11, 2015 11:40:53 GMT
Your asking for the impossible Andrew. There is no known mechanism in the universe that can explain it to you.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 11, 2015 11:45:25 GMT
Your asking for the impossible Andrew. There is no known mechanism in the universe that can explain it to you. Perhaps not. But if you have a point to be made it should be possible for you to explain it to me after over a week of talking to you. What actually do you believe about barycenters? After over a week i have no idea. 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 trueYou don't understand what a Barycenter is..... anything outside of that point is attracted to it 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. I have no knowledge about this theory or any dispute. Thomson however was proven to be totally muddled up.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 11, 2015 16:42:12 GMT
Perhaps not. But if you have a point to be made it should be possible for you to explain it to me after over a week of talking to you. What actually do you believe about barycenters? After over a week i have no f**k**g idea. Earlier I several times wanted you to focus on the following but I never saw you agreed it was not trueYou don't understand what a Barycenter is..... anything outside of that point is attracted to it 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. I have no knowledge about this theory or any dispute. Thomson however was proven to be totally muddled up. Obviously you still do not understand what a barycenter is. It is a point of attraction everything in the solar system has some degree of attraction to. The sun is orbiting the barycenter. If we want to know the actual direction of travel of the sun from an arbitrary vantage point in space need to know where the galaxy barycenter is. Your confusion comes in these frames of references. None of it though distracts from the fact the pull exists and a frictionless object is going to move in the direction of the pull and that is going to result in an orbit. The galaxy barycenter pulls along the whole solar system so it moves the SSBC also. This is like a great baseball pitch the ball dances from multiple motions induced by the pitcher with his arm, fingers, and anything else he can get away with putting on the ball. The sun orbits around the barycenter and it moves in odd ways so the orbits are multilayered and take on an uneven appearance The dominant planet's movement of the barycenter can be easily seen, remove it and you will see a new and smaller loop. The planets have independent motion from their orbits around the sun so while they orbit the barycenter they have an additional looping effect. The planet that loses its orbit speed will miss going through the barycenter because things do not go through barycenters they orbit them number one (though by chance it could because the barycenters are all inside planetary orbits), and number two they will still orbit the barycenter even in the form of a crater on another body. You just need to understand that objects are attracted to barycenters and eventually orbit them no matter what because every object that has influence on the barycenter is doing it also no matter what else they might be doing. If they weren't attracted to the barycenter they wouldn't orbit the barycenter and stars would not wobble. Is that what you believe? If not then you tell me what you believe. Lesson is over. Time for a test. One question: What do you believe is the effect of a barycenter? Your whole problem seems to be that you can't sing and dance at the same time and baseball curve balls are impossible because you can't have a ball looping and going to the plate at the same time and of course since its not the classical greek concept of an orbit its not an orbit anyway. Yeaccccch!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 11, 2015 19:33:18 GMT
Perhaps not. But if you have a point to be made it should be possible for you to explain it to me after over a week of talking to you. What actually do you believe about barycenters? After over a week i have no f**k**g idea. Earlier I several times wanted you to focus on the following but I never saw you agreed it was not true I have no knowledge about this theory or any dispute. Thomson however was proven to be totally muddled up. Obviously you still do not understand what a barycenter is. It is a point of attraction everything in the solar system has some degree of attraction to. The sun is orbiting the barycenter. If we want to know the actual direction of travel of the sun from an arbitrary vantage point in space need to know where the galaxy barycenter is. Your confusion comes in these frames of references. None of it though distracts from the fact the pull exists and a frictionless object is going to move in the direction of the pull and that is going to result in an orbit. The galaxy barycenter pulls along the whole solar system so it moves the SSBC also. This is like a great baseball pitch the ball dances from multiple motions induced by the pitcher with his arm, fingers, and anything else he can get away with putting on the ball. The sun orbits around the barycenter and it moves in odd ways so the orbits are multilayered and take on an uneven appearance The dominant planet's movement of the barycenter can be easily seen, remove it and you will see a new and smaller loop. The planets have independent motion from their orbits around the sun so while they orbit the barycenter they have an additional looping effect. The planet that loses its orbit speed will miss going through the barycenter because things do not go through barycenters they orbit them number one (though by chance it could because the barycenters are all inside planetary orbits), and number two they will still orbit the barycenter even in the form of a crater on another body. You just need to understand that objects are attracted to barycenters and eventually orbit them no matter what because every object that has influence on the barycenter is doing it also no matter what else they might be doing. If they weren't attracted to the barycenter they wouldn't orbit the barycenter and stars would not wobble. Is that what you believe? If not then you tell me what you believe. Lesson is over. Time for a test. One question: What do you believe is the effect of a barycenter? Your whole problem seems to be that you can't sing and dance at the same time and baseball curve balls are impossible because you can't have a ball looping and going to the plate at the same time and of course since its not the classical greek concept of an orbit its not an orbit anyway. Yeaccccch! >>One question: What do you believe is the effect of a barycenter? A barycenter has no abilities to influence anything at all and has nothing to do with a center of gravity. The center of gravity of the solar system is very close to the center of the Sun - hence objects are not suspended in space at the SSBC and no planet directly orbits the SSBC and no planet ever will be able to - there is nothing there. The planets gravity at the Sun is totally tiny. If the Sun falls in Jupiters gravity for 65 days, with the Sun continually getting faster and faster it will be travelling 1.5m/s at the end of the 65 days from a stationary start. >>You just need to understand that objects are attracted to barycenters and eventually orbit them There is nothing there to create an orbit and never will be. Nothing is attracted to the BC. In the two body case, the BC is just something that happens because there is only one force between two masses, but the BC itself cannot be the cause of anything at all. >>>>Obviously you still do not understand what a barycenter is. It is a point of attraction everything in the solar system has some degree of attraction to. That is a very vague statement. I think if you make it into a more definite statement it will be helpful for both of us. A word other than 'some' is needed
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 11, 2015 19:53:39 GMT
Surely the barycenter is a function of all gravitational influences in the solar system (hell include gravitational effects from outside if they exist or can be quantified. ..)
As Astro pointed out, bit like a pivot...although it is not a physical thing to affect anything physical, the fact that it is the balance point of physical forces, the sum of all forces, the components of this sum are having an effect on anything at or near that point, proportional to distance and size etc.
I can kinda see where most posters are coming from here, think a couple of points are getting circled a little. ..
The biggest potential issue is, does the barycentre/sum of all gravitational forces in solar system affect sun activity?
The fact that so little is clear about any of this provably suggests even the boffins can't define the possibilities here.....tbh I'm just glad Andrew has calmed down a bit....and also this subject has been highlighted so much, it is fascinating so thanks for that much Andrew.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 11, 2015 20:23:35 GMT
Surely the barycenter is a function of all gravitational influences in the solar system The SSBC is created by the masses of the objects. If the "barycentric" view was valid, Jupiters gravity would have to be thousands of times more powerful at the distance of the SSBC. As far as I can see to find where the balance point of the solar systems gravity we need to remove mass from the Sun till we have the tiny Jupiter etc gravity at the new tiny Sun which will now be thousands of times smaller than the Moon. Its a simple calculation using a gravity calculator. Just have to repeat till we get the same gravity as Jupiter with all the others added in. astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/renaissance/gravcalc.htmlIf you plug in 2m distance, a persons mass and a large asteroid using the graphics you find the asteroid is too big and the mountain is too small. I found a mass of 1.3X10 power of 17 gave me the same gravity as the sun gets from Jupiter. Jupiter distance from Sun of 7.78 times ten to the power of 11.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 11, 2015 21:04:57 GMT
Surely the barycenter is a function of all gravitational influences in the solar system The SSBC is created by the masses of the objects. If the "barycentric" view was valid, Jupiters gravity would have to be thousands of times more powerful at the distance of the SSBC. As far as I can see to find where the balance point of the solar systems gravity we need to remove mass from the Sun till we have the tiny Jupiter etc gravity at the new tiny Sun which will now be thousands of times smaller than the Moon. Its a simple calculation using a gravity calculator. Just have to repeat till we get the same gravity as Jupiter with all the others added in. If anybody implied something was at the barycenter that was providing the attraction (like a sun) that was not an intended implication on my part. I drew the vector chart sometime ago to try to clarify that. Everything heads there and may head there very slowly and the motion of the barycenter in a binary system results in a nice complete orbit. In a complex system its a dance with a lot of movement and irregular orbits. I am not in dispute that the effect is very small it only takes something above zero gravitational force to move the sun as it is a frictionless object. The pea would move it in an orbit that would take time forever to complete. Jupiter's influence requires the same period as Jupiter's orbit for the sun to circle the barycenter. And Jupiters influence draws the sun to the barycenter because the barycenter by definition is in line with the sun and Jupiter and the power of the influence is exactly equal to the gravitational pull on Jupiter, in fact it is Jupiter that provides the force. If Jupiter did not orbit it would collide with the sun with both objects headed right for each other (assuming no other planets) the fact that Jupiter orbits the sun causes Jupiter to force the sun to orbit the barycenter. The barycenter itself attracts nothing, the sun is always headed for it and it misses because Jupiter effectively drags the barycenter around the center of of the sun so the result is an orbit. All this confusion is the result of the obfuscation and or ignorance of the guy trying to point out the barycenter does nothing. Its a meaningless point the sun is attracted to it and ends up circling it. If there were not a concept of a barycenter folks would not be talking about the sun circling moving points in space, like when the first concepts of an orbit were developed. EGADS one would have a hard time itemizing all the adopted concepts that come out of a few words particularly when sides are being picked instead of trying to maintain independence. Heck maybe words make for solar variability! By the way Andrew could you try to keep these discussion on a single thread. Its hard remember what was posted where.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 11, 2015 21:30:59 GMT
The SSBC is created by the masses of the objects. If the "barycentric" view was valid, Jupiters gravity would have to be thousands of times more powerful at the distance of the SSBC. As far as I can see to find where the balance point of the solar systems gravity we need to remove mass from the Sun till we have the tiny Jupiter etc gravity at the new tiny Sun which will now be thousands of times smaller than the Moon. Its a simple calculation using a gravity calculator. Just have to repeat till we get the same gravity as Jupiter with all the others added in. If anybody implied something was at the barycenter that was providing the attraction (like a sun) that was not an intended implication on my part. I drew the vector chart sometime ago to try to clarify that. Everything heads there and may head there very slowly and the motion of the barycenter in a binary system results in a nice complete orbit. In a complex system its a dance with a lot of movement and irregular orbits. I am not in dispute that the effect is very small it only takes something above zero gravitational force to move the sun as it is a frictionless object. The pea would move it in an orbit that would take time forever to complete. Jupiter's influence requires the same period as Jupiter's orbit for the sun to circle the barycenter. And Jupiters influence draws the sun to the barycenter because the barycenter by definition is in line with the sun and Jupiter and the power of the influence is exactly equal to the gravitational pull on Jupiter, in fact it is Jupiter that provides the force. If Jupiter did not orbit it would collide with the sun with both objects headed right for each other (assuming no other planets) the fact that Jupiter orbits the sun causes Jupiter to force the sun to orbit the barycenter. The barycenter itself attracts nothing, the sun is always headed for it and it misses because Jupiter effectively drags the barycenter around the center of of the sun so the result is an orbit. All this confusion is the result of the obfuscation and or ignorance of the guy trying to point out the barycenter does nothing. Its a meaningless point the sun is attracted to it and ends up circling it. If there were not a concept of a barycenter folks would not be talking about the sun circling moving points in space, like when the first concepts of an orbit were developed. EGADS one would have a hard time itemizing all the adopted concepts that come out of a few words particularly when sides are being picked instead of trying to maintain independence. Heck maybe words make for solar variability! By the way Andrew could you try to keep these discussion on a single thread. Its hard remember what was posted where. Ok I will keep everything here. I started that planet thread because that thomson conversation was in a barycenter thread. only barycenter discussions were wanted there. You keep talking about Leif setting out to deliberately derail a conversation. Not correct. He addressed the barycenter points. Thompson was obviously pretty far out with his thinking and people were very polite to him. I do not like the way you keep saying the Sun is attracted to the SSBC. The Sun is attracted to the Planets. There is a point to that because if we do not use language correctly we can never work out what the other is saying. >>And Jupiters influence draws the sun to the barycenter because the barycenter by definition is in line with the sun and Jupiter. The only time they are in line is when they are all lined up. >>All this confusion is the result of the obfuscation and or ignorance of the guy trying to point out the barycenter does nothing. The BC does nothing. That is totally true. >>Its a meaningless point the sun is attracted to it and ends up circling it. The sun is not attracted to it. The sun is attracted to the planets which are orbiting the Sun. >>And Jupiters influence draws the sun to the barycenter because the barycenter by definition is in line with the sun and Jupiter and the power of the influence is exactly equal to the gravitational pull on Jupiter,The power of the influence is the one force between the Sun and Jupiter created by the combined gravity of both objects, divide the one force by the mass at each end and you get the gravity experienced at that end created by the other body. If we are in space together and you throw me an elastic line and make it tight that is not the same as the sun and jupiter. I need to throw you an elastic line and pull that tight to make it comparable I dont like the way you keep talking about a pea in a dismissive manner. My idea was to talk about a much larger and yet still utterly insignificant object as far as an ability to create a center of gravity. I still do not know if you understand what a barycenter is - the way you use language suggests you do not. Saturn and Jupiter are combined totally insignificant in their ability to create a gravitational center anywhere near the SSBC apart from when it is more or less at the exact center of the sun
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 11, 2015 22:03:25 GMT
Ok I will keep everything here. I started that planet thread because that thomson conversation was in a barycenter thread. only barycenter discussions were wanted there. You keep talking about Leif setting out to deliberately derail a conversation. Not correct. He addressed the barycenter points. Thompson was obviously pretty far out with his thinking and people were very polite to him. I do not like the way you keep saying the Sun is attracted to the SSBC. The Sun is attracted to the Planets. There is a point to that because if we do not use language correctly we can never work out what the other is saying. >>And Jupiters influence draws the sun to the barycenter because the barycenter by definition is in line with the sun and Jupiter. The only time they are in line is when they are all lined up. >>All this confusion is the result of the obfuscation and or ignorance of the guy trying to point out the barycenter does nothing. The BC does nothing. That is totally true. >>Its a meaningless point the sun is attracted to it and ends up circling it. The sun is not attracted to it. The sun is attracted to the planets which are orbiting the Sun. >>And Jupiters influence draws the sun to the barycenter because the barycenter by definition is in line with the sun and Jupiter and the power of the influence is exactly equal to the gravitational pull on Jupiter,The power of the influence is the one force between the Sun and Jupiter created by the combined gravity of both objects, divide the one force by the mass at each end and you get the gravity experienced at that end created by the other body. If we are in space together and you throw me an elastic line and make it tight that is not the same as the sun and jupiter. I need to throw you an elastic line and pull that tight to make it comparable I dont like the way you keep talking about a pea in a dismissive manner. My idea was to talk about a much larger and yet still utterly insignificant object as far as an ability to create a center of gravity. I still do not know if you understand what a barycenter is - the way you use language suggests you do not. the sun is attracted to all the planets. the net result is it does not move toward any planet (unless they are all lined up) but it heads somewhere and the SSBC was invented to describe where it was headed. My diagram showed two planets each attracting the sun, the vector diagram I provided with this figure which pinpoints where the sun is headed and its headed towards the barycenter (SSBC) When you have several directional forces and current relative positions of the forces you can use a vector diagram to show where the center of gravity is. The center of gravity is called a barycenter for whatever reason.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 11, 2015 22:04:39 GMT
Is the gravitational pull of Jupiter able to affect the sun....Do other planets matter?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 11, 2015 22:09:06 GMT
Is the gravitational pull of Jupiter able to affect the sun....Do other planets matter? Leif says the internal currents in the Sun are moving at kilometers per second so it seems fanciful a tide of 1mm can make any difference and nobody knows of any other ability of the planets to influence the Sun. If the planets influence the Sun it seems we need to discover something we do know yet know - which of course must be possible.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 11, 2015 22:13:01 GMT
Ok I will keep everything here. I started that planet thread because that thomson conversation was in a barycenter thread. only barycenter discussions were wanted there. You keep talking about Leif setting out to deliberately derail a conversation. Not correct. He addressed the barycenter points. Thompson was obviously pretty far out with his thinking and people were very polite to him. I do not like the way you keep saying the Sun is attracted to the SSBC. The Sun is attracted to the Planets. There is a point to that because if we do not use language correctly we can never work out what the other is saying. >>And Jupiters influence draws the sun to the barycenter because the barycenter by definition is in line with the sun and Jupiter. The only time they are in line is when they are all lined up. >>All this confusion is the result of the obfuscation and or ignorance of the guy trying to point out the barycenter does nothing. The BC does nothing. That is totally true. >>Its a meaningless point the sun is attracted to it and ends up circling it. The sun is not attracted to it. The sun is attracted to the planets which are orbiting the Sun. >>And Jupiters influence draws the sun to the barycenter because the barycenter by definition is in line with the sun and Jupiter and the power of the influence is exactly equal to the gravitational pull on Jupiter,The power of the influence is the one force between the Sun and Jupiter created by the combined gravity of both objects, divide the one force by the mass at each end and you get the gravity experienced at that end created by the other body. If we are in space together and you throw me an elastic line and make it tight that is not the same as the sun and jupiter. I need to throw you an elastic line and pull that tight to make it comparable I dont like the way you keep talking about a pea in a dismissive manner. My idea was to talk about a much larger and yet still utterly insignificant object as far as an ability to create a center of gravity. I still do not know if you understand what a barycenter is - the way you use language suggests you do not. the sun is attracted to all the planets. the net result is it does not move toward any planet (unless they are all lined up) but it heads somewhere and the SSBC was invented to describe where it was headed. My diagram showed two planets each attracting the sun, the vector diagram I provided with this figure which pinpoints where the sun is headed and it headed towards the barycenter (SSBC) Good representation icefisher.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 11, 2015 22:57:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 11, 2015 23:09:51 GMT
the sun is attracted to all the planets. the net result is it does not move toward any planet (unless they are all lined up) but it heads somewhere and the SSBC was invented to describe where it was headed. The SSBC cannot help you decide in which direction the Sun will go. The SSBC is constructed from Mass and distance. So for example Saturn has great weight in the SSBC but it only has slightly greater influence upon the Sun as the Earth does. Earth and Venus have more influence than Jupiter does.
|
|