|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 26, 2010 16:52:48 GMT
And while we are talking of 'the Sun' being in free fall - perhaps it should be considered that 'the Sun' is not an elementary particle or a dimensionless point, but a huge multitude of separate particles all pulled together by their mass/gravitational effect. Therefore, 'the Sun' is not in free fall - each individual particle is in free fall.
As the barycenter moves (and it can be inside the Sun or up to two solar radii outside the Sun) the particles are not only in rotation (the layers in differential rotation) but also the particles in the layers are trying to free fall to a barycenter that is moving past them - for some of them this means the free fall is in the reverse direction to the movement of the layer of the Sun that they are in.
If you like consider a single particle in a moving layer of particles whose vector is close to direct 'in free-fall' toward the barycenter. However, the barycenter then passes the particle going in a diametrically opposite vector. Can it really be said that there is 'no effect on the particle' or the layer of particles that is now moving _away_ from the barycenter rather than free falling toward it?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 26, 2010 21:03:54 GMT
The second type - Is looking for _and finding_ planets around other stars by assessing doppler shifts in the star's radiance due to a wobble caused by planets circling them.
Doppler shifts which can only be detected where large planets are orbiting at relatively small distances from the star.
|
|
|
Post by bprimerano on Mar 27, 2010 0:42:50 GMT
It's not hard to calculate that the Sun / Jupiter system would orbit a point just outside the sun's radius.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 27, 2010 2:47:27 GMT
It's not hard to calculate that the Sun / Jupiter system would orbit a point just outside the sun's radius. At times the barycenter is 2 solar radii outside the Sun - especially when Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune are in alignment
|
|
|
Post by bprimerano on Mar 27, 2010 19:49:42 GMT
I agree. I am pointing out the minimum case.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 27, 2010 20:55:30 GMT
The second type - Is looking for _and finding_ planets around other stars by assessing doppler shifts in the star's radiance due to a wobble caused by planets circling them.Doppler shifts which can only be detected where large planets are orbiting at relatively small distances from the star. If you read the second reference planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/SIM/scienceMotivations/sciTeamPrograms/science_marcy.pdf you will see that they are hoping to find 1 x Earth Mass planets using doppler shift as well as those up to 3 x Earth Mass. The real point is THAT THERE IS A DOPPLER SHIFT which means that the stars are not stationery with planets circling them but are circling a barycenter that provides a measurable doppler shift in their radiance. The Sun must also be following the same type of epitrochoid orbit around a _moving_ barycenter. Of more interest is if the Sun is orbiting the moving barycenter - so is the Earth/moon. The motion of the barycenter can therefore impose stresses on the Earth as its orbit is forced to alter. There are several papers that show correlations between Solar activity such as Sun spots and earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The moving barycenter is a potential mechanism. (You should like that you are always wanting to know the mechanism behind things )
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 28, 2010 6:08:46 GMT
I've added a few more items to the 'Modified Jose' Solar Forcing model
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 28, 2010 14:26:07 GMT
Although the Sun plays a role in Earth's climate, there are problems with the chart above. Without getting bogged down in too many details, these include: 1. The oldest cave paintings are far older than shown (~17,000 years bp vs. 11,000 years bp), are coincident with glacial maximum from full ice-age conditions, and have no known correlation to solar forcing. 2. Dark Ages cooling, while it may have been amplified by solar grand minima, was most likely initiated by this and not by the Sun. 3. Galileo had died before the onset of the Maunder Minimum and famously made a name for himself, in part, by recording spots on the surface of the Sun.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 28, 2010 19:39:06 GMT
Of more interest is if the Sun is orbiting the moving barycenter - so is the Earth/moon. The motion of the barycenter can therefore impose stresses on the Earth as its orbit is forced to alter. There are several papers that show correlations between Solar activity such as Sun spots and earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The moving barycenter is a potential mechanism. (You should like that you are always wanting to know the mechanism behind things )
You don't give up, do you?
THe 'stresses' on the earth, sun and moon are the same as those exerienced by an astronaut in space, i.e. undetectable. As far as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are concerned: what is the mechanism. The moon creates tidal effects on the earth's surface including the hard rock land parts. The sun creates effects which are about half the size of the moon's. The effect from the rest of the planets is negligible.
Just exactly what is it that you think might be happening to cause the effects you claim.
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 28, 2010 23:40:11 GMT
Thanks for the help. I didn't mean to suggest Galileo and the Maunder Minimum were directly cross correlated (although from what I wrote I thought it at some point ... I started this 6 mo's ago). There are others and maybe I need to change the wording. I will look at your suggestions ... I was just in a rush to cover the Holocene after being inspired by glc and a graph posted earlier to look further ... also, you may have noticed I put some things in there simply to mark time. I did see the time you are talking about for cave paintings but did not change it. You may have noticed I did not reference anything ... because it is a very rough march through history at this point. Anyway, I also got distracted by the Gilgamesh Epic et al, the theory Homo Sapiens evolved with a hard wired tendency to form groups which helped us eliminate other hominid competition but makes us susceptible to things like AGW theory ... and other things like how do you define when we started to use agriculture? ... how did those practices evolve and where? Its a rough pass and I'm surprised how well it does considering the 'phase change' notion and other underlying ideas are just derived from a few papers. I have not attempted to do any work like that of Geoff Sharp to see if there is some physical evidence that this was the cause of the MWP. I'm just having fun with it and the journey is the motivation ... I'm sure it will get trashed definitively eventually ... and I have grid restoration and other regulatory subjects to tackle at the moment. Forgive me if I take my time and hopefully someone will take this historical method and hash it out with more finesse.
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 29, 2010 5:06:57 GMT
OK, OK ... the Galileo assertion started to bother me so I changed it. I should have seen that or recognized it lately as I have been interested in fleshing out the whole 'Standard Theory' of the Universe and its history. Point 2 is too much detail for what I'm doing at this point and I removed the cave painting thing and left a comment for my reference in case I missed something or want another historical time stamp there. The evolving one is at the link on itsonlysteam.com
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 29, 2010 8:25:52 GMT
OK, OK ... the Galileo assertion started to bother me so I changed it. I should have seen that or recognized it lately as I have been interested in fleshing out the whole 'Standard Theory' of the Universe and its history. Point 2 is too much detail for what I'm doing at this point and I removed the cave painting thing and left a comment for my reference in case I missed something or want another historical time stamp there.
I've just noticed the Dalton Minimum events. 1. A "frozen Thames" was NOT unique to the Dalton (and/or Maunder) Minimum period. The Thames froze completely on a number of occasions during the Medieval Warm Period - and also during the mid-1700s when the sunspot count was high. 2. The Thames is less likely to freeze nowadays because various changes (e.g bridges demolished/replaced) means the river flow is much faster than it was. 3. Charles thingyens was born in 1812 so was still a child by the end of the Dalton Minimum. His novel, 'A Christmas Carol', was released in 1843 - more than 20 years after the DM. 4. The CET record suggests that temperatures during the DM were pretty much the same as those throughout the 19th century as a whole. The 1800-1900 trend was flat. 5. A number of records suggest that any decline in temperatures began well before the weak DM cycles. 6. The cold russian winter had a huge effect on Napoleon's army in 1812. But how was this any different to the problems experienced by the Germans in WWII.
If the Dalton Minimum was such a brutally harsh period climate-wise how come you need to rely on a couple of non unique events and the stories of a fictional writer to make your case.
PS is there some sort of censorship filter running on this blog. I've posted the name of the author who wrote David Copperfield, Great Expectations etc and something has replaced the first 4 letters of his surname with "thingy".
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 29, 2010 14:36:18 GMT
Of more interest is if the Sun is orbiting the moving barycenter - so is the Earth/moon. The motion of the barycenter can therefore impose stresses on the Earth as its orbit is forced to alter. There are several papers that show correlations between Solar activity such as Sun spots and earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The moving barycenter is a potential mechanism. (You should like that you are always wanting to know the mechanism behind things ) You don't give up, do you? THe 'stresses' on the earth, sun and moon are the same as those exerienced by an astronaut in space, i.e. undetectable. As far as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are concerned: what is the mechanism. The moon creates tidal effects on the earth's surface including the hard rock land parts. The sun creates effects which are about half the size of the moon's. The effect from the rest of the planets is negligible. Just exactly what is it that you think might be happening to cause the effects you claim. "You don't give up, do you?"Not when you have a logic blind-spot "THe 'stresses' on the earth, sun and moon are the same as those exerienced by an astronaut in space, i.e. undetectable. As far as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are concerned: what is the mechanism. The moon creates tidal effects on the earth's surface including the hard rock land parts. The sun creates effects which are about half the size of the moon's. The effect from the rest of the planets is negligible. "Think this through. A body is in free fall towards another point - the body has significant mass. The point towards which it is in free fall moves - the velocity of the free fall now changes as the body has to alter the vector towards the moving point. Such a change requires a force to be applied and the momentum of the mass on its original vector will act against the force. Now tell me that in your new science can a mass traveling at significant speed on a vector alter that vectors without any force applied? The very reason the Earth is in an 'orbit' and not on a straight line vector is the 'force of gravity' toward the barycenter of the Solar system. And that point is moving in a chaotic fashion. You are carried away with calculating tidal forces - instead consider the forces required to change a planet's orbital velocity as the point about which that orbit is being made moves.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 29, 2010 22:06:39 GMT
Think this through. A body is in free fall towards another point - the body has significant mass. The point towards which it is in free fall moves - the velocity of the free fall now changes as the body has to alter the vector towards the moving point. Such a change requires a force to be applied and the momentum of the mass on its original vector will act against the force.
The velocity of the free falling body changes due to the conservation of angular momentum. If the displacement (distance/radius) decreases - velocity increases. An ice skater spins faster as the arms are pulled in to the side from an outstretched position. The same happens with the sun and the orbiting planets.
Now tell me that in your new science can a mass traveling at significant speed on a vector alter that vectors without any force applied?
It's not new science and it's not mine.
You are carried away with calculating tidal forces - instead consider the forces required to change a planet's orbital velocity as the point about which that orbit is being made moves
What forces? The ice skater exerts no additional force to spin faster. There might be a slight change in the gravitational/tidal forces on the planet but these will be tiny.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Mar 30, 2010 23:04:37 GMT
Nice chart, Steam. There is more work there than most will appreciate. And doubters aside, human history not only goes far beyond 20KY BCE, it takes some very strange twists and turns. People managed to eke out a living in places and at times where no life is thought to have existed.
You just have to have a sharp eye for anachronisms and look in the right places.
Stranger
|
|