|
Post by acidohm on Jun 1, 2015 6:43:35 GMT
Just ask dr. Leif in the Space weather section of this forum. ...He is quite open to answering questions.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 1, 2015 8:36:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 1, 2015 9:08:37 GMT
Relax Andrew....I mean nothing by it...
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 1, 2015 9:16:47 GMT
those who think tides and orbits around barycenters have nothing to do with climate Nautonnier As I recall you had the notion a barycenter must have some huge influence upon the Sun whereas Leif was saying the tidal influence was tiny. I did not even know what a barycenter was when I read your posts, but you were celibrating how amused you were by comments about them. Given how cocky you were about the topic I found it rather irritating when after I had researched the information and 'presented' it to the board, and frustratingly interacted with you about it, that you dissapeared without acknowledging you had been totally mixed up. I would guess therefore the main problem barycenters has for climate conversations is the one created by having to deal with the same ill thought out ideas time and time again. Edit: After i typed that out I found our comments about barycenters. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/95086/threadHere is a summary: 1. I asked you what point you were wanting to make about Barycenters, described what they were and you then said you agreed with me but2. you claimed Svaalgard was disputing what NASA was saying about Barycenters! 3. I said there was no way that Svaalgard could be disputing what NASA said 4. You produced a link to support your argument 5. After reading your link I pointed out Svaalbard was not disputing barycenters existed and you were muddled up 6. You dissapeared. ------------------------------ As I recall, the tide on the Sun created by the barycenter is about 10cm high! The entire Sun moves in its path because of the planets, the mass of Jupiter is continuously accelerated in its orbit around the Sun, have you calculated the amount of force that takes? As the Sun alters its path the Earth and other planets similarly alter theirs it is one of the cycles affecting the Earth climate and has knock on effects on the Earth/Moon orbits. Astronomers identify stars that have planets by their 'wobble' induced by the planets orbiting them. Then when it comes to our own local star insist that it does not wobble. They do not appear to grasp the dissonance. Do a little mindgame with yourself. Imagine a dual star system with each star the same mass 'orbiting' each other. Then slowly reduce the size of one of the stars till it is a 'failed star' like Jupiter then give it similarly massive companions. Now claim there is no such thing as a barycenter. You probably have discarded the writings of Theodore Landscheidt, but perhaps you should read Don Easterbrook on barycenters and the effect on the Sun.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 1, 2015 9:35:25 GMT
Nautonnier As I recall you had the notion a barycenter must have some huge influence upon the Sun whereas Leif was saying the tidal influence was tiny. I did not even know what a barycenter was when I read your posts, but you were celibrating how amused you were by comments about them. Given how cocky you were about the topic I found it rather irritating when after I had researched the information and 'presented' it to the board, and frustratingly interacted with you about it, that you dissapeared without acknowledging you had been totally mixed up. I would guess therefore the main problem barycenters has for climate conversations is the one created by having to deal with the same ill thought out ideas time and time again. Edit: After i typed that out I found our comments about barycenters. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/95086/threadHere is a summary: 1. I asked you what point you were wanting to make about Barycenters, described what they were and you then said you agreed with me but2. you claimed Svaalgard was disputing what NASA was saying about Barycenters! 3. I said there was no way that Svaalgard could be disputing what NASA said 4. You produced a link to support your argument 5. After reading your link I pointed out Svaalbard was not disputing barycenters existed and you were muddled up 6. You dissapeared. ------------------------------ As I recall, the tide on the Sun created by the barycenter is about 10cm high! The entire Sun moves in its path because of the planets, the mass of Jupiter is continuously accelerated in its orbit around the Sun, have you calculated the amount of force that takes? As the Sun alters its path the Earth and other planets similarly alter theirs it is one of the cycles affecting the Earth climate and has knock on effects on the Earth/Moon orbits. Astronomers identify stars that have planets by their 'wobble' induced by the planets orbiting them. Then when it comes to our own local star insist that it does not wobble. They do not appear to grasp the dissonance. Do a little mindgame with yourself. Imagine a dual star system with each star the same mass 'orbiting' each other. Then slowly reduce the size of one of the stars till it is a 'failed star' like Jupiter then give it similarly massive companions. Now claim there is no such thing as a barycenter. You probably have discarded the writings of Theodore Landscheidt, but perhaps you should read Don Easterbrook on barycenters and the effect on the Sun. I have now got sufficiently confused myself by this topic i have written to Svalgaard for clarification. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/105500/threadHowever as I read it, neither Svalgaard or NASA are disputing the Sun is wobbling. From Leif ------------------------------------- Leif Svalgaard September 7, 2013 at 8:53 pm >>David Thomson says: >>September 7, 2013 at 5:55 pm >>Look at the Earth – Moon system. The center of gravity of these two bodies is neither in the Earth nor the Moon, yet both >>orbit the barycenter. The Sun does the same thing. The Sun is not in a simple binary system as are the Earth and Moon. The Sun’s orbit around the solar barycenter is wildly variable on the scale of hundreds of years. The variability is what shakes up the Sun’s core and modulates its magnetohydrodynamic systems. I later realised this second paragraph was also written by David Thomson-------------------------------------- From NASA spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/ In the case of the Earth and the Sun, both bodies orbit around the very center of the mass (similar to center of gravity) between them. This point is called the "barycenter."
Earth and the Sun are "connected" by the gravity pulling them together. It's just like the light end and heavy end of the sledge hammer. Compared to the size of the Sun, though, Earth is about like a flea on a cat! So the center of mass between the Earth and the Sun is almost—but not quite—the very center of the Sun.
Jupiter, on the other hand, is 318 times as massive as Earth. Therefore, the barycenter of Jupiter and the Sun is a bit further from the Sun's center. So, as Jupiter revolves around the Sun, the Sun itself is actually revolving around this slightly off-center point, located just outside its surface.
The barycenter "wobble" gives us a way to find planets around other stars.
Thus, a planet the size of Jupiter will make its star wobble a tiny bit.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 1, 2015 18:49:31 GMT
those who think tides and orbits around barycenters have nothing to do with climate Nautonnier As I recall you had the notion a barycenter must have some huge influence upon the Sun whereas Leif was saying the tidal influence was tiny. I did not even know what a barycenter was when I read your posts, but you were celibrating how amused you were by comments about them. Given how cocky you were about the topic I found it rather irritating when after I had researched the information and 'presented' it to the board, and frustratingly interacted with you about it, that you dissapeared without acknowledging you had been totally mixed up. I would guess therefore the main problem barycenters has for climate conversations is the one created by having to deal with the same ill thought out ideas time and time again. Edit: After i typed that out I found our comments about barycenters. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/95086/threadHere is a summary: 1. I asked you what point you were wanting to make about Barycenters, described what they were and you then said you agreed with me but2. you claimed Svaalgard was disputing what NASA was saying about Barycenters! 3. I said there was no way that Svaalgard could be disputing what NASA said 4. You produced a link to support your argument 5. After reading your link I pointed out Svaalbard was not disputing barycenters existed and you were muddled up 6. You dissapeared. ------------------------------ As I recall, the tide on the Sun created by the barycenter is about 10cm high! less than 1cm Andrew you are going to remain hopelessly muddled up until you understand the difference between tides and the barycenter. Tides have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a celestial body rotating around a barycenter. tides are a product of gravity, barycenters is the center of mass of the solar system. The barycenter does not create the tides. The tides are created by gravity. While tides have several meanings, the largest sense of tides is the distortion of the shape of planet or star as influenced by the pull of gravity from other planets or stars. These distorted bodies rotate around their collective barycenter.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 1, 2015 18:56:51 GMT
Nautonnier As I recall you had the notion a barycenter must have some huge influence upon the Sun whereas Leif was saying the tidal influence was tiny. I did not even know what a barycenter was when I read your posts, but you were celibrating how amused you were by comments about them. Given how cocky you were about the topic I found it rather irritating when after I had researched the information and 'presented' it to the board, and frustratingly interacted with you about it, that you dissapeared without acknowledging you had been totally mixed up. I would guess therefore the main problem barycenters has for climate conversations is the one created by having to deal with the same ill thought out ideas time and time again. Edit: After i typed that out I found our comments about barycenters. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/95086/threadHere is a summary: 1. I asked you what point you were wanting to make about Barycenters, described what they were and you then said you agreed with me but2. you claimed Svaalgard was disputing what NASA was saying about Barycenters! 3. I said there was no way that Svaalgard could be disputing what NASA said 4. You produced a link to support your argument 5. After reading your link I pointed out Svaalbard was not disputing barycenters existed and you were muddled up 6. You dissapeared. ------------------------------ As I recall, the tide on the Sun created by the barycenter is about 10cm high! less than 1cm Andrew you are going to remain hopelessly muddled up until you understand the difference between tides and the barycenter. Tides have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a celestial body rotating around a barycenter. tides are a product of gravity, barycenters is the center of mass of the solar system. The barycenter does not create the tides. The tides are created by gravity. While tides have several meanings, the largest sense of tides is the distortion of the shape of planet or star as influenced by the pull of gravity from other planets or stars. These distorted bodies rotate around their collective barycenter. I agree I wrote that totally incorrectly. Yes the barycenter is effectively a mathematical construct. Yes gravitational influences create two tides because there is a weakest and strongest influence by gravity on the same rotating body. If you are up to speed with the topic perhaps you can now explain what Nautonnier it talking about?? Here it is: The entire Sun moves in its path because of the planets, the mass of Jupiter is continuously accelerated in its orbit around the Sun, have you calculated the amount of force that takes? As the Sun alters its path the Earth and other planets similarly alter theirs it is one of the cycles affecting the Earth climate and has knock on effects on the Earth/Moon orbits.
Astronomers identify stars that have planets by their 'wobble' induced by the planets orbiting them. Then when it comes to our own local star insist that it does not wobble. They do not appear to grasp the dissonance.The second paragraph is just totally weird because nobody seems to be saying the Sun does not wobble. The first paragraph seems confused, but so far i am not sure what he is actually saying in that paragraph. For example "the mass of Jupiter is continuously accelerated in its orbit around the Sun"
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 2, 2015 10:05:31 GMT
Andrew you are going to remain hopelessly muddled up until you understand the difference between tides and the barycenter. Tides have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a celestial body rotating around a barycenter. tides are a product of gravity, barycenters is the center of mass of the solar system. The barycenter does not create the tides. The tides are created by gravity. While tides have several meanings, the largest sense of tides is the distortion of the shape of planet or star as influenced by the pull of gravity from other planets or stars. These distorted bodies rotate around their collective barycenter. I agree I wrote that totally incorrectly. Yes the barycenter is effectively a mathematical construct. Yes gravitational influences create two tides because there is a weakest and strongest influence by gravity on the same rotating body. If you are up to speed with the topic perhaps you can now explain what Nautonnier it talking about?? Here it is: The entire Sun moves in its path because of the planets, the mass of Jupiter is continuously accelerated in its orbit around the Sun, have you calculated the amount of force that takes? As the Sun alters its path the Earth and other planets similarly alter theirs it is one of the cycles affecting the Earth climate and has knock on effects on the Earth/Moon orbits.
Astronomers identify stars that have planets by their 'wobble' induced by the planets orbiting them. Then when it comes to our own local star insist that it does not wobble. They do not appear to grasp the dissonance.The second paragraph is just totally weird because nobody seems to be saying the Sun does not wobble. The first paragraph seems confused, but so far i am not sure what he is actually saying in that paragraph. For example "the mass of Jupiter is continuously accelerated in its orbit around the Sun" I don't see any problem with it. A force, any force (gravity) exerts an accelerating influence on a mass. Gravity bends the path of Jupiter continuously at a rate that causes it to orbit versus escaping orbit and eventually traveling in a straight line or falling to the surface of the sun. Its a continuous acceleration at an agreeable rate that keeps Jupiter in orbit. Its constant acceleration as the vector of the force changes from the bending of the orbital path. Read my reply to your other thread on this that goes more into the topic.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 2, 2015 11:03:22 GMT
I agree I wrote that totally incorrectly. Yes the barycenter is effectively a mathematical construct. Yes gravitational influences create two tides because there is a weakest and strongest influence by gravity on the same rotating body. If you are up to speed with the topic perhaps you can now explain what Nautonnier it talking about?? Here it is: The entire Sun moves in its path because of the planets, the mass of Jupiter is continuously accelerated in its orbit around the Sun, have you calculated the amount of force that takes? As the Sun alters its path the Earth and other planets similarly alter theirs it is one of the cycles affecting the Earth climate and has knock on effects on the Earth/Moon orbits.
Astronomers identify stars that have planets by their 'wobble' induced by the planets orbiting them. Then when it comes to our own local star insist that it does not wobble. They do not appear to grasp the dissonance.The second paragraph is just totally weird because nobody seems to be saying the Sun does not wobble. The first paragraph seems confused, but so far i am not sure what he is actually saying in that paragraph. For example "the mass of Jupiter is continuously accelerated in its orbit around the Sun" I don't see any problem with it. A force, any force (gravity) exerts an accelerating influence on a mass. Gravity bends the path of Jupiter continuously at a rate that causes it to orbit versus escaping orbit and eventually traveling in a straight line or falling to the surface of the sun. Its a continuous acceleration at an agreeable rate that keeps Jupiter in orbit. Its constant acceleration as the vector of the force changes from the bending of the orbital path. Read my reply to your other thread on this that goes more into the topic. Ok. The mass of the ISS is continually accelerated in its orbit around the Earth. What point is being introduced by "the mass of Jupiter is continuously accelerated in its orbit around the Sun"
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 2, 2015 16:11:18 GMT
I don't see any problem with it. A force, any force (gravity) exerts an accelerating influence on a mass. Gravity bends the path of Jupiter continuously at a rate that causes it to orbit versus escaping orbit and eventually traveling in a straight line or falling to the surface of the sun. Its a continuous acceleration at an agreeable rate that keeps Jupiter in orbit. Its constant acceleration as the vector of the force changes from the bending of the orbital path. Read my reply to your other thread on this that goes more into the topic. Ok. The mass of the ISS is continually accelerated in its orbit around the Earth. What point is being introduced by "the mass of Jupiter is continuously accelerated in its orbit around the Sun" If the Sun suddenly ceased to exist, Jupiter would proceed in a straight line at a tangent to its orbit (ignoring the other planets for the moment). So the Sun (rather its gravity) is applying a force to change the vector of Jupiter. That force causes an acceleration as all forces do. See Wiki The Sun is also subject to the same equal and opposite force and is also accelerated by Jupiter (or its gravity) and by ell the other planets.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 2, 2015 17:00:19 GMT
Ok. The mass of the ISS is continually accelerated in its orbit around the Earth. What point is being introduced by "the mass of Jupiter is continuously accelerated in its orbit around the Sun" If the Sun suddenly ceased to exist, Jupiter would proceed in a straight line at a tangent to its orbit (ignoring the other planets for the moment). So the Sun (rather its gravity) is applying a force to change the vector of Jupiter. That force causes an acceleration as all forces do. See Wiki The Sun is also subject to the same equal and opposite force and is also accelerated by Jupiter (or its gravity) and by ell the other planets. OK. If the earth ceases to exist the ISS will continue in a straight line The Earth orbits the Earth Moon barycenter and the ISS is influenced by the Earth so that it continues in Earth Orbit and nobody on the ISS notices anything. What point are you wanting to make please?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 2, 2015 21:56:03 GMT
If the Sun suddenly ceased to exist, Jupiter would proceed in a straight line at a tangent to its orbit (ignoring the other planets for the moment). So the Sun (rather its gravity) is applying a force to change the vector of Jupiter. That force causes an acceleration as all forces do. See Wiki The Sun is also subject to the same equal and opposite force and is also accelerated by Jupiter (or its gravity) and by ell the other planets. OK. If the earth ceases to exist the ISS will continue in a straight line The Earth orbits the Earth Moon barycenter and the ISS is influenced by the Earth so that it continues in Earth Orbit and nobody on the ISS notices anything. What point are you wanting to make please? Well from my view of the posts you referred to Nautonnier was not claiming what you have been claiming he has been claiming. The fact there is a barycenter at all is evidence of a there also being a tidal influence and of all the planets in the solar system Jupiter has the largest tidal influence and the largest barycenter offset effect, though thats merely coincidental because of the massiveness of Jupiter that overrides the fact that outer planets tend to have a larger barycenter effect that inner planets all else being equal. However that fact does not support your notion that anybody else is claiming something that is nonsense as you seem to be claiming it does. Seems to me the only problem is your confusion about what people are saying about what. To go a bit further in the discussion, in a binary system with perfectly circular orbits one would not expect any variation in climate or solar activity as a result of the influences that produce the barycenter. Thats because the barycenter would be unvariable. However, introduce multiple planets with multiple orbit periods and elliptical orbits the solar wobble is going to have variation and as a result gravitational effects are going to vary and thus any tidal or climate effects dependent upon those effects are going to vary also. However, one needs to be careful in equating wobble variability to the barycenter variability as the barycenter is supposed to encompass all variation and its a fact that the true barycenter cannot be calculated as we have no knowledge of all the affects on it, all we can do is calculate individual influences as if they were binary systems then group what we calculate into a defined barycenter that will certainly not be the true barycenter but may include all that is important or perhaps not. So in review near as I can tell you are the only one in this thread that has totally botched the notion. You seem to be learning though so if you really have something to dispute perhaps you could state it more clearly.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 2, 2015 22:29:50 GMT
It always amazes me that astronomers will identify stars with planetary systems by detecting a doppler shift due to the star's 'wobble' caused by the star actually orbiting a barycenter not just spinning on its own axis -- yet those same astronomers will deny that the Sun has any wobble, no epitrrochoid motion, no change in AM. It's almost a Ptolemy like hangover - that the Sun is special not like those other downmarket stars that wobble. I have actually pointed out the journal papers where they describe finding extra-solar-system planets and said surely the same effect is seen in the Sun? Almost got banned from some blogs doing that. those who think tides and orbits around barycenters have nothing to do with climate The entire Sun moves in its path because of the planets, the mass of Jupiter is continuously accelerated in its orbit around the Sun, have you calculated the amount of force that takes? As the Sun alters its path the Earth and other planets similarly alter theirs it is one of the cycles affecting the Earth climate and has knock on effects on the Earth/Moon orbits. Astronomers identify stars that have planets by their 'wobble' induced by the planets orbiting them. Then when it comes to our own local star insist that it does not wobble. They do not appear to grasp the dissonance.Do a little mindgame with yourself. Imagine a dual star system with each star the same mass 'orbiting' each other. Then slowly reduce the size of one of the stars till it is a 'failed star' like Jupiter then give it similarly massive companions. Now claim there is no such thing as a barycenter. You probably have discarded the writings of Theodore Landscheidt, but perhaps you should read Don Easterbrook on barycenters and the effect on the Sun. What is nautonnier talking about? He is saying something do do with climate changing tides and climate changing orbits around barycenters and something about Astronomers not understanding how things work. But what is his point?? what does he believe about these things?? How can it be possible that after a few days of massive effort on my part i have absolutely no idea what he is talking about???
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 3, 2015 7:21:11 GMT
The plot just got a bit thicker! Last night I found this sticking out like dogs ball on a barely used part of this forum. Unbelievably it is from 2008 and Nautonnier is repeating the same strange claim he made this week and back in 2013 that Astronomers do not realise the Sun wobbles solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/258/epitrochoid-orbits-barycentersThe subject of chaotically varying epitrochoid orbit of the Sun around the barycenter of the solar system was discussed at great length on the 'old board'. One theory (espoused by Fairbridge and others) is that as the barycenter of the solar system moves with the varied positions of the planets and the Sun itself orbits (or is in free fall to) the solar system barycenter. Thus the Sun's orbital and perhaps rotational velocity is altered as it chases the moving solar system barycenter which can be within the Sun or up to 2 solar diameters outside the Sun and move prograde or retrograde. (There is more but that will do for now). The counter argument was that this was not true - barycenters were an unreal construct, therefore the Sun did not have varying orbital or rotational velocity and in any case the planets have negligible effects on the Sun - perhaps a 'tidal pull' of a few millimetres. There is no real debate whether the Sun orbits the solar system barycenter, it does so according to basic laws of gravity. The value you mention is slightly incorrect, the Sun can wander up tp ~2.2 solar radii from the solar system barycenter, not 2 solar diameters. The barycenter is there and so is the varing orbital velocity. This velocity is, however, always quite small (~walking pace) . The Sun is in free fall, so it does not feel inertia forces. You are confusing this with tidal effects, which is something else. The tidal effects are also vanishingly small. The wobble of other stars as well as ours is well known, nothing new. As mentioned there is no controversy over whether the sun orbits the barycenter. The debate has been focused on whether the Sun's orbital movements are related to solar activity. It is difficult to find a physical model explaining such a relation. Very curiously almost 7 years later, this poster called Nautonnier is still claiming on this forum that astronomers and people like Leif Svalgaard do not realise the Sun wobbles. What is more, even though I put a massive personal effort into attempting to understand what he was talking about, I made absolutely no progress in that mission. I only just found this thread, so it sheds quite a bit more light on his behaviour, but I still have no idea what is motivating him to produce such strange responses over such a very large number of years.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 3, 2015 16:58:18 GMT
Seems to me you are invoking meaningless objections. The planets orbit the sun, the sun orbits the barycenter (you agreed with all that), therefore the planets also orbit the barycenter on average because the barycenter is the center of where the sun is. . . .on average. Same deal with affects on earth's orbit shape. If Jupiter affects the sun and the earth its also going to affect the shape of the orbit around the sun via variations in distance and speed brought on by their mutual gravitational attraction to each other as their separation varies. So as you move towards agreement your objection to Nautonnier's comments seem to be fading into obscurity. Perhaps you could restate your objection more clearly this time as opposed to simply making the claim he is horribly muddled up. I have no idea what you are talking about anymore. Nautonnier is still claiming NASA Lief and astronomers are saying there is no Solar wobble - even though i provided good evidence that was an incorrect belief. Nautonnier has told us he was banned from web sites because of the conversations he had with astro people about this topic where he claimed there should be a wobble and they said (according to him) there would be no wobble. He just told me for the third time I was claiming there would be no solar wobble! Since it is perfectly clear to me you do know what i am talking about why not take it up with him? Perhaps he will listen to you? Andrew I don't see NASA or Leif being mentioned in your evidence. Nautonnier does use the term astronomers in an anonymous sense. Actually it does sound like something that would come from Astronomer Dr. James Hansen. But whats with the deal of you trumping up the charges? Is this so you can make a case out of nothing? Obviously there are a lot of stupid scientists around that say a lot of stupid things. Heck here are some examples: 1. "As I recall, the tide on the Sun created by the barycenter is about 10cm high! less than 1cm" Andrew, the barycenter does not create the tides!! 2." I noticed Leif Svalgaard said something like 'if a pea was placed sufficiently far from the Sun it would have a greater impact upon the SS barycenter than Jupiter has, and surely nobody would argue the pea could cause the planets to significantly alter their orbits?'" So what the heck does a pea have to do with anything? What is your point and why is Leif making this example? Then you compound the stupidity with: 3. "The infinitely distant pea is not a good example because the pea would be outside the known universe and surely incapable of being in an orbit around a relatively tiny object like the Sun." If its a bad example why did you use it? Then, 4. "The pea idea is only pointing out the stupidity of solar system barycentric planetary orbits." Andrew, what point are trying to make here? 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. Then, 5. "If you consider an earth sized object a few light years out then the idea becomes more practical. The object would create a very large change in the barycenter while changing nothing that mattered" Dang Andrew the main thrust of the discussion is the sum of the effects of Jupiter on the sun and earth. So you think its a smart idea to dispute it with an object less than one three hundreths the mass of Jupiter that is about 40,000 times further away. Have you lost your mind completely!!! then, 6. "The first thing to realise is that the Sun will never be the centre of a planetary orbit" Andrew why is this the first thing to realize? And why never? then, 7. "Theo, I already noticed you are one of the "barycentric folk"." Andrew you mean Astromet believes in the existence of a solar wobble? What is the point here? 8. "Nautonnier you are horribly muddled up. I gave you a link showing NASA saying the Sun wobbles due to the influence of jupiter, and at this point in time i have no reason at all to believe Svalgaard disputes NASA" Hmmm, Andrew at first above you claimed that Nautonnier was claiming (without evidence) that both NASA and Svalgard were disputing a solar wobble. Now you have switched to Nautonnier claiming Svalgaard disputes NASA, proving beyond any reasonable doubt you are making it all up. then, 9. "My maths only deals with the absurdity of planets orbiting a solar system barycenter. My maths says nothing at all about the Sun not being being influenced by the other planets. My maths says nothing at all about the Sun orbiting the solar system barycenter." Your maths prove absurdity? Explain the logic behind this nonsense! And DANG! ANDREW! This is only one guy on one topic in one day! Imagine the range of stupidity of scientists out there over the alleged 7 years!! . . . .and you dispute any range of stupidity at all!!!
|
|