|
Post by Andrew on Jun 14, 2015 20:34:16 GMT
>>The barycenter describes a location in space where the various forces are in balance.
Which various forces are you talking about? In what way are they balanced?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 15, 2015 1:39:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 15, 2015 4:10:12 GMT
The Sun is not pulled towards "the centre of the solar systems gravity". It is pulled towards the planets gravity. Likewise the ISS is not pulled towards "the centre of the Earth moon systems gravity". A barycenter has no properties or abilities to change anything. The barycenter is mathematically the center of mass. The only thing capable of changing anything are the individual objects in the system. Versusthats total nonsense Andrew. You don't understand what a Barycenter is. Sure its a mathematical construct but it is a mathematical construct of real gravitational forces. All the objects in the solar system are pulled to this point as its the point of where all the forces balance out and anything outside of that point is attracted to it like a magnet. Go back and review your force vectors in high school physics. The sun is pulled to it and the planets are pulled to it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 15, 2015 4:41:04 GMT
Why in Gods name are you including a link showing stars are moved by planets while saying the Sun is not moved by the planets?? Andrew: The planets do NOT pull the sun around. Where the SUN goes, the planets will follow.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 15, 2015 11:54:49 GMT
Andrew: I still don't understand what you are trying to explain.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 15, 2015 12:03:00 GMT
Andrew: I still don't understand what you are trying to explain. You just produced a link that shows stars are moved by their planets. spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/So I have a question for you. Do you think the Sun is moved by the planets of our Solar system?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 15, 2015 12:28:43 GMT
Andrew: I still don't understand what you are trying to explain. You just produced a link that shows stars are moved by their planets. spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/So I have a question for you. Do you think the Sun is moved by the planets of our Solar system? Of course it is. Just as the sun follows the larger barycenter of the universe. As I stated, the planets follow the sun.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 15, 2015 12:32:32 GMT
So why is it when i am having a difficult conversation with another poster do you attempt to correct me by saying this? Andrew: The planets do NOT pull the sun around. Where the SUN goes, the planets will follow.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jun 15, 2015 13:39:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 15, 2015 18:12:17 GMT
The Sun is not pulled towards "the centre of the solar systems gravity". It is pulled towards the planets gravity. In order for Andrew to cure his ignorance he needs to understand that this is a distinction without any difference. The problem is in the distinction he thinks he sees but is incapable of describing. Obvious the sun is pulled by the planets but it can't go 9 directions at once so where it goes is the center of the solar gravity. Andrew apparently can't reconcile that fact. And see that the sun is doing a lot of stuff simulataneously while heading toward this center of gravity. It circles its barycenters with all the planets, both individually and in sum (SSBC). Likewise the planets circle the sun and the barycenter it shares with the sun and the barycenter in sum (SSBC). More over there is more as the solar system circles its barycenter with the galaxy as well as the summed barycenter of the galaxy (GBC) as do all the stars, planets, solar systems, in the galaxy. Then its probably another step up to the entire universe. In my opinion if we had no understanding of the forces that do this (gravity) the science community would term the movements of the stars to be chaotic. But they do understand these concepts and they have applied the big bang to explain the expanding universe. The sun never arrives at what it is traveling toward, it simply chases it without getting any closer. The result is a complex weave of orbits around the barycenter. The weave is complex only because the planets change position relative to each other as the chase goes on. If all the planets were on fixed bearings from the sun (e.g. they all rotated the sun with the same orbital period and in a perfect circle.) then the orbit would be nice perfect circle. In order for andrew to understand this he needs to understand this orbit is an analog of a planetary orbit. A planetary orbit is just like the trajectory of a projectile except to be an an orbit the planets orbit speed needs to counteract the suns gravity just enough to keep it in orbit. Too fast of a speed and the planet will shoot off in space, too low of a speed, like a bullet, it will fall to the solar surface. The sun is doing the same thing being pulled toward the planet (in a single planet system) like it was falling to the planet. But the planets speed moves out of the way at the right pace. This produces the concept of a barycenter where these forces are neutral (gravitational influences) since the sun is the biggest object in the solar system this point is nearer the sun than the planet. As you add planets with different sizes, orbit shapes, orbit distances, orbit speeds, and orbit periods the system gets complex and as a result appears to get erratic. Andrew is trying to learn enough from this discussion so he can prove that the sun does not get jerked around. Yet the very basic physics of the variability introduced by the additional planets with different physics will cause the sun to change direction and move at various speeds as the vectored pull to the center of gravity varies due to changes in relative positions of the planets. (basically a high school physics experiment on the effects of gravity from multiple positions, and trajectories). He is doing this because he convinced himself that Leif is denying the sun gets jerked around whereas I don't think thats precisely what Leif is saying he is saying the sun is in freefall. Which probably can be taken to mean getting jerked around is confusing in that the sun is really in virtual freefall with hardly any forces occurring at all. the argument that angular momentum and the acceleration and deceleration of the sun is too minor to cause anything is getting overly simplified. If Leif actually believed to degree that Andrew thinks he believes and Leif implied and Nautonnier probably called him on. . . .the logical extension of that fact would be that the sun does not wobble. . . .while Leif actually does say the sun wobbles else where. So if the sun wobbles what causes it to wobble in Leif's world? The answer is the way described above. Andrew has made him vulnerable in his inimitatible style of believing what every scientist says on a blog no matter how long ago he said it and whether science has advanced or not. Leif knows what he is doing is why I called him for obfuscation. And the confusion of Andrew is the result. Andrew routinely relies on the fallacy of an appeal to authority in most of his discussions. Its probably understandable if its in the form of a published study, but we have seen what kind of crapola can get published, a fact acknowledged by every scientist on all sides of issues where scientists are in disagreement, which is basically everything to some degree. The fact he decided to rely on his favorite fallacy from a comment on a blog by one of his Gods has resulted in this rather hilarious, circular, and worthless discussion. He blocks me when I hold his feet to the fire on providing substantiation for his claims. It appears Andrew caught Nautonnier implying Leif did not believe the sun wobbles, which one could easily construe from Leif's claim that the sun is in free fall (I am not 100% sure thats attributable to Leif but its attributable to some one on Leif's side of the argument against the main argument that the movement on the planets have an effect on solar variability. As I see it there is no room between getting jerked around and free fall. An orbiting planet is in free fall, it only gets jerked around when you introduce other variable forces, which is what you get when you add planets that constantly changing their relative positions. . . .which I have pointed out arises directly from highschool level physics problems surrounding the concepts of gravity. To really question it you have to be a denier of gravity. The only fact that Andrew is not a denier of gravity is because he doesn't understand what is being discussed here. Obfuscation is the main tool of the warmists in trying to establish that there is no uncertainty regarding the threat to the planet posed by CO2. To do so they need to say stuff that simply is not true.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 18, 2015 7:40:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gsharp on Jun 19, 2015 3:51:54 GMT
This area of science is really not studied too much I am thinking. I have come across many astronomers including some who worked for NASA who still think the planets orbit the SSB directly. Thankfully we have the JPL ephemeris these days to put any arguments to rest.
Unfortunately it will take some time before planetary science takes its rightful place, but it will happen.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 19, 2015 4:52:37 GMT
This area of science is really not studied too much I am thinking. I have come across many astronomers including some who worked for NASA who still think the planets orbit the SSB directly. Thankfully we have the JPL ephemeris these days to put any arguments to rest. Unfortunately it will take some time before planetary science takes its rightful place, but it will happen. But you must have been pleased that you and Ian Wilson played such an important role in that Tallblokes discussion? I found it odd that Greg Goodman, who provided many useful summaries in that discussion, totally rejected the Sun orbiting the SSBC? According to Gregs blog, Tallbloke banned him because of that. I have left a message with Greg to see if he wants to discuss his reasons here.
|
|
|
Post by gsharp on Jun 19, 2015 12:07:44 GMT
Wasnt aware Greg was banned on the talkshop, I go in the sinbin on occasion, but am used to that Strange that Greg would accept the JPL figures for the Earth/Sun distance but not the Sun/SSB distance. You cant have your cake and eat it too? I didnt pick up his objection to the solar orbit in the tallbloke thread, I had better read it again.
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by greg on Jun 19, 2015 20:48:13 GMT
Wasnt aware Greg was banned on the talkshop, I go in the sinbin on occasion, but am used to that Strange that Greg would accept the JPL figures for the Earth/Sun distance but not the Sun/SSB distance. You cant have your cake and eat it too? I didnt pick up his objection to the solar orbit in the tallbloke thread, I had better read it again. Hi gsharp, if you see something that seems contradictory, please quote directly so I can respond. Here is graph of the near perihelion distance of earth-moon barycentre from centre of sun extracted from JPL ephemeris climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/em_perihelion.pngNote this is not the exact perihelion but that distance on 6th Jan each year, so the upward drift is just the precession of the equinox. What is interesting is the repetitive cycle. Clearly Jupiter is dominant but there are other systematic influences from the other planets. Also the drop at century boundaries is leap year adjustments, not a physical jump in orbital cycles. Roughly reading off the magnitude of the 12y cycle it's about 0.00007 AU peak to peak. eg 1984-1990 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinates_%28astronomy%29" If all the planets were aligned on the same side of the Sun, the combined centre of mass would lie about 500,000 km above the Sun's surface." ( if you can trust WP ) SSB was close to centre of sun around 1990 and farthest out in 1984, This matches the cycles on my graph. variation in perihelion distance is much smaller than variation in SSB from CS. ie EM primarily orbits sun but is somewhat deflected by the planetary gravitation. If EM orbited the SSB then deviations in perihelion would be similar to SC-SSB distances and they are not. Hopefully that gives you a definitive answer to the question. I'm glad Andrew reminded me of that thread, it was quite productive until Roger got pissy and banned me. ( mostly by email, he seems to have cleaned up the end of the thread, something he usually does to hide his bad manners and mistakes). This thing about Jupiter cyclically affecting perihelion relates to something else I was analysing recently and could not understand. I won't comment further because it's still a half baked theory but this may provide the key. Using a lowpass filter to remove the 4y calendar juggling of 1/4 days and leap years we see quite a clear pattern. There is a long term modulation over 8 cycles ( 94y) that looks similar to amplitude modulation. Now A.M. patterns are mathematically identical to addition of two cyclic signals. If we work out what would combine with 11.8624 to produce a 96y pattern it 13.53years. Now this is something that has come out of spectral analysis of several SST records and has always puzzled me. I still do not know the origin but at least this shows that it is of celestial origin. It seems to be net effect of the other planets with a significant gravitational effect. As Tallbloke pointed out, closer perihelion means greater eccentricity of the earth's obrit. Quite what, if any effect that has on climate heeds some thought. It is interesting that the lowest points in 1925 and 1975 mark roughly the start of the two warming periods of 20th c. and look like hitting another trough in 2020. One thing that no climate model seems to be able to match ( and I include stuff like Scafetta's empirical cyclic models ) is the deep 1975 trough. Maybe perihelion change is the key.
|
|