|
Post by Andrew on Jun 21, 2015 9:33:59 GMT
Well just creating a name solar inertial motion does not show an effect. It sounds technical but what is it and why does it matter? The sun is not 'orbiting' around anything. It has a very complex locus that is determined by the ever changing positions of the planets. There is only a very rough three lobed repetition after something like 57y IIRC. There is no "point" not even a moving one about which it is revolving. At any given instant there is a direction of net gravitational force, no point. Imagine drawing all the individual lines of attraction to each planet, they will not all cross in one nice neat point. At least, I should say I've never done the calculation but if they did it would be some magical symmetry of the system , not a generally expected result. The whole concept of there being some 'point' even accepting it's not the barycentre is mistaken. Gravity is a vector not a point. Vector do not have position, they have direction and magnitude. I would also caution against interpreting your calculation as a real movement. Clearly the sun does not get 14040km closer to Neptune and equally N does not get 14040km closer to the sun. There is no linear movement because of the opposing rotational inertial forces. It is this acceleration that constrains the planet to a roughly circular orbit, it never actually gets any closer. This is why I asked the question of TB, how does N affect the "solar inertial motion" and why does it matter? This never got an answer. I think there is a conception that the sun is being tugged all over the place and that there must some kind of inertial forces acting to distort it as a result. However, as Svalgaard frequently points out the sun is in free-fall. Now the free-fall argument is billiard ball mechanics again and there may be something in looking a non-linearities in the gravitational field across the body of the sun. I think Ian Wilson and others have looked at tidal forces and torque effects. Venus Earth and Jupiter are the main tidal influences on the sun. Neptune is a drop in the ocean on that one since it's inverse CUBE with distance. Clearly the locus of the sun is determined by the gravitational effects of the planets, we know the relative importance of the planets in that calculation and N is way down the list at 1/620 the magnitude of Jupiter. For the moment I have no idea what SIM is or why it matters. Finally, I'd be very surprised if the variable "11y" solar cycle is not driven by the planets, principally Jupiter. There was a fleeting analysis by some highly competent individual called "Bart" who showed that variations in SSN could be derived very simply from just two periodicities. Obviously this was dismissed without argument by Leif Svalgaard because Bart got further in 15min that Dr S has in his whole career. Sadly "Bart" has never been heard of since. I think TB has a contact. I was going to ask you more about SIM but you have sorted that out for me. I never understood from where this term 'Solar inertial motion' came from and just assumed, like you say, it was some sort of technical term that was a bit beyond me to understand, which just meant the Sun wandered around under the influence of the planets. My use of 'point' was not meant to be like it was a fixed point in space. Point is the wrong word. The Sun appears to 'orbit'. Yes the 'orbit' is only created by the pull of the planets. Yes the Sun is only in free fall. However the velocity does change by small amounts - absolutely miniscule/tiny amounts on a daily/weekly/monthly basis and nothing like a tug or jerk. >>I would also caution against interpreting your calculation as a real movement. Clearly the sun does not get 14040km closer to Neptune and equally N does not get 14040km closer to the sun. There is no linear movement because of the opposing rotational inertial forces. It is this acceleration that constrains the planet to a roughly circular orbit, it never actually gets any closer. There may well be no movement closer between a planet and the Sun, but there must be an acceleration caused by the planet that causes the Sun to wobble and my calculation shows it is going to be fairly significant for Neptune. Neptunes influence being slightly less than one third of Jupiters influence. If I did the calculation for the other planets, I imagine i will come up with something similar to the sort of relative importance the barycentrists display graphically, even while the magnitude of the effect is much smaller than the barycentrists would have us believe in. Incidently, I was wrong about Mercury moving the Sun a guesstimated 4km when Mercury moves 20 degrees. In fact it only moves 545 Meters as calculated by the calculators. Mercury mass is 3.3022*1023kg Distance to Sun 60,000,000km Plugged into astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/renaissance/gravcalc.html Gives Mercury accleration of the sun is 6.11*10E-9 together with Time to travel 20 degrees being 117.33 hours and www.ambrsoft.com/CalcPhysics/acceleration/acceleration.htm gives 545M So I think my method gives a reasonable guesstimate of relative importance Jupiter pulling in one direction for 243 days creates '46,200km' of solar 'movement' Neptune pulling in one direction for 9 years creates '14,039km' of Solar 'movement' Mercury pulling in one direction for almost 5 days creates '545M' of solar 'movement'
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by greg on Jun 21, 2015 16:35:43 GMT
"... must be an acceleration caused by the planet that causes the Sun to wobble and my calculation shows it is going to be fairly significant for Neptune."
Be aware that a body moving in a perfectly constant, circular orbit is also experiencing acceleration. This is called the centripetal acceleration.
The acceleration of the sun is the same thing, it is the 'centripetal' acceleration that leads to all the swirling patterns of the locus that I linked to. The cumulative effect of all these accelerations is the looping locus of the sun.
From the animations we can see that the outer planets U and N are significant after J&S, so you argument about then acting in the same direction for a long time seems justified. Presumably by the same argument U&N will affect eccentricity.
I'm more interested in understanding the variation in the earth's distance from the sun (eccentricity). That seems much more easily linked to possible climatic variation.
I'm also thinking of the Saros eclipse repetition cycles (18.06) that match E-M-S geometry and also match time of day every three saros: 54y. How does this compare to the Saturn three leaf pattern?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 21, 2015 16:56:54 GMT
My use of 'point' was not meant to be like it was a fixed point in space. Point is the wrong word. The Sun appears to 'orbit'. Yes the 'orbit' is only created by the pull of the planets. Yes the Sun is only in free fall. However the velocity does change by small amounts - absolutely miniscule/tiny amounts on a daily/weekly/monthly basis and nothing like a tug or jerk. LOL! Nothing like a "tug" or "jerk". What kind of scientific quantification is that? Gravity is the weak force in the universe among the known forces, but we are talking energy here when you claim a tug or jerk. Your use of the theoretical distance the sun would travel perpendicularly in a linear manner through 20 degrees of Jupiters orbit is of hardly any relevance. It only has relevance to a small mind with a fixed frame of reference, which in this case is a huge frame of reference. You say 40,000km but in fact thats not the distance the sun travels thats the theoretical linear distance the sun would travel if pulled in straight line like a vessel at sea towing a barge. You are improperly calling it the suns movement when in fact the suns movement would be the 40,000km times 2 times pi or about a 1/4 million km by Jupiter through about 20 degrees of its orbit about the barycenter. The acceleration of the sun would be to a velocity with no known limits if it weren't for the fact that Jupiter exerts a torque on the sun's orbit that reverses its vector of influence twice through one orbit. You calculated the torque on the sun which more properly would be expressed in degrees or radians, not distance. The sun's speed induced by Jupiter is a constant not an acceleration because Jupiter is towing it around the barycenter and the rate it does that is limited by Jupiters orbital inertia. Now is that still not a tug? Seems to be precisely the definition of a tug. Is it a jerk? Well if we define a jerk as a strong pull, well yeah its strong. After all the distance traveled is only one part of the physics equation for strength the other multiplier is the mass of the sun which is humongous. Net force is mass times acceleration. The acceleration is low the mass is huge. Equals one heckuva a lot of force. I can image the size and horsepower of a boat required to haul the sun across an ocean at 42km/hour (or even in the torque sense 7km/hour), Jupiters torque on the sun is sufficient to reverse that force once every 6 years, approximately at the rate the sun reverses its magnetic fields. All this force may explain a lot in the universe. Like provide the answer to the question as to whether objects emit light if there is not a cold eye to see it. Photon theory says yes but ultimately there is no scientific support for that presumption. In fact its the one major inconsistency we see in electromagnetic radiation. We don't generally see the light of things but instead see reflections of light off of things, except of course hot things hot enough to trigger the sensors in our eyes. Its so inconsistent its hard to fathom why we adhere to the photon theory except as a tribal myth. Your argument is that it would be absurd for a star so far out in distant space to reach out to our planet before emitting a photon. But the absurd is far from being out of the realm of possibility. . . .considering that it is believed a net force field reaches out from the galaxy center mass to our solar system. . . .the question is whether you have the mind to envision it and whether you have the ability to look for possible mechanism while being so deep in denial. Fact is we can see the wobble of stars with Jupiter-sized planets because the change in light frequency is sufficient to detect these 84km/hour changes in orbit speed (reversal of the 42km/hour orbit speed of the sun around its barycenter with Jupiter). Our understanding of the philosophical question of does a falling tree in a forest make a sound if nobody is there to hear it is that its really an insolvable problem. Inventors, Philosophers, and the Great Scientists avoid believing they know the answer to such questions and that helps them toward greatness as opposed to being impeded by a small mind and being unduly influenced in their thinking about insolvable problems. Maintaining the myth probably has one merit in that it motivates brilliance for the purpose of ending ignorance.
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by greg on Jun 21, 2015 18:00:12 GMT
"....if it weren't for the fact that Jupiter exerts a torque on the sun's orbit that reverses its vector of influence twice through one orbit." A torque can only be exerted on a object not on an "orbit". The reversal of the direction of a torque vector means it is acting in the opposite rotational direction. "....6 years, approximately at the rate the sun reverses its magnetic fields." Really? do you have a ref for that ? "You calculated the torque on the sun which more properly would be expressed in degrees or radians, not distance" Torque in measured in newton.metre or equivalent units. You do not appear to know what torque is. You are clearly in no position to start throwing insults about "ignorance". I've seen several of your earlier posts were of a similar nature. You sound like a freshman student who, after his first term, thinks he knows it all. Throwing insults around just makes you look smug, not intelligent. Especially when you get it wrong while trying to be smart. Sometimes it is better to remain silent and retain the impression of being a philosopher.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 21, 2015 19:21:34 GMT
"....if it weren't for the fact that Jupiter exerts a torque on the sun's orbit that reverses its vector of influence twice through one orbit." A torque can only be exerted on a object not on an "orbit". The reversal of the direction of a torque vector means it is acting in the opposite rotational direction. Yes thats the difference between a torque vector and the vector of influence. The former is in relationship to an orbit that rotates 360 degrees and the latter is a static reference point (comparatively but not exactly in reference to the galaxy). "....6 years, approximately at the rate the sun reverses its magnetic fields." Really? do you have a ref for that ? Again perhaps frame of reference issue. Incorrectly worded in terms of conventional scientific discussion about the sun's magnetic fields. But I am not talking about conventional wisdom here hardly at all. What we do see in conventional discussion is a reversal with each solar cycle at the approximate but varied rate of the orbit of Jupiter, about 11 or 12 years. The period is inexact due to a short window of observation. . . .but close enough for interest. In the meantime we see the solar cycle doing an entire 360 cycle changing directions twice during a single cycle as does the static gravitational influence exerted by Jupiter. We see this disturbing the solar magnetic fields in other ways, location of sunspots for example. If one does not transcend science in a philosophical question one is not posing a philosophical question. Perhaps its an issue of frame of reference and how its measured (e.g. unidirectional measurement, absolute value, instead of say direction of influence). I think there is some suggestion of what I said in the fact that the solar cycle is measured at 180degree opposition to the field reversal. Since the solar cycle itself moves between the poles of the sun and is believed to be magnetically influenced (astronomically by Astromet, or for reasons of an internal dynamo by Svalgaard) the cause of all that is undecided. At some level there is more going on that initially meets the idea, Jupiter in opposition to other planets and the galaxy for example. This occurs on the 6 year cycle relative to the galaxy and variable depending on the planet Jupiter is in opposition to. "You calculated the torque on the sun which more properly would be expressed in degrees or radians, not distance" Torque in measured in newton.metre or equivalent units. You do not appear to know what torque is. Yes it is but newton.metre is not a distance either. The distance concept resulting from the torque is properly expressed in terms of degrees or radians. The reason is precisely because of the point I think you made that the distance between Jupiter and the Sun does not change. Sure you can calculate the result as a distance but since one is dealing with acceleration and not a pure velocity the distance is going to vary from no defined value (zero) to an undefined distance (infinity). So in the frame of reference cherry picked by Andrew at 243 days average velocity for 244 days will be greater and as such would represent a more than proportional increase in distance. In other words distance in terms of torque distance in traditional distance measurements (km) has no meaning whatsoever by official science and mathematical definition, though it could have other meaning but its being wrongly couched in subjective pseudo-scientific conclusions. What has meaning is the periods of reversal, the angular velocity (degrees over time) and such. How much meaning is a topic of conjecture. You are clearly in no position to start throwing insults about "ignorance". I've seen several of your earlier posts were of a similar nature. 1. Ignorance is not an insult, its a fact. We are all ignorant of almost everything. 2. Stupid is an insult as it implies there is no cure for ignorance. You sound like a freshman student who, after his first term, thinks he knows it all. Throwing insults around just makes you look smug, not intelligent. Especially when you get it wrong while trying to be smart. Sometimes it is better to remain silent and retain the impression of being a philosopher. Well actually in physics I will take being a freshman as a compliment as that would be my level tomorrow if I decided to major in physics, which I won't be. OTOH, you sound like a freshman philosophy student, something I got considerably beyond. Philosophers do not remain silent as the "job" of a philosopher is to pose and discuss questions. Philosophers do not pretend to answer them. You will see no answers in my comments above. Thats because once they are answered they are no longer philosophy questions. I have a great deal of both education and job experience in defining the line between philosophy and science. I was top statistics student in my college class because I have good proficiency with mathematics and a good deal of philosophical education to understand that statistics is not a true science and that instead its a mathematical tool whose results will vary depending upon how well you are able to define randomness, representativeness, and homogeneity in your statistical population all skills more closely aligned with philosophy than science. Many of our greatest recognized scientists were also great philosophers. In fact proficiency in both is probably the number one prerequisite for greatness in science as there is very definitely scientists firmly ensconced in bounded boxes, journeymen if you will and those who are not, the inventors and discoverers of new knowledge, the masters. So bottom line is no insult was intended towards you. I am dealing with the uncertainty of science, climate change, and what causes sunspots. In that question one has to invent stuff to pose good philosophical questions. I think that is what is good about this forum is we have a variety of smart people with different backgrounds. Because of that we do not all talk perfectly what the others language is. So I can understand and accept often my physics falls a little short in terms of precise language. Orbit is a great example of how Andrew and Svalgaard wanted to impose community legislated language on what is essentially still a philosophy question whereas we can see the community itself using the term in other ways. I can practically guarantee you that if you are going to want to enforce precise physics definitions on me it will be more of an exclusion based upon an elitist concept being of the wrong race, religion, belief, whatever. I personally don't think the science community does a very good job of precisely defining terms even in the most highly peer reviewed published studies. They don't because there is no way for anybody to punish them for violations of the use of words like there is for public accountants in their published works. I will leave it at that. There may have been insults intended towards Andrew because of his penchant for insulting others. As to whether Andrew is stupid or not the jury is out for me. He shows capability of learning but at times he becomes adamantly sure he is right and insulting of those who disagree which is huge sign of stupidity. As far as you go I hardly know you. Perhaps you see there is something to discuss above related to the points I was making or maybe not or you are going to choose the ad hominem approach as does Andrew when he gets cornered. I just think the place we all want to be in this discussion is a place of being open minded. The global warming community is in much the same straits as the global cooling community was in the 1970's. In the 1990's and 2000's many scientists had shut out uncertainty because all their theory was in alignment with the direction and intensity of warming (like the global cooling community as in the 1960's and 70's) Today the primary basis of global warming theory which was correlation to observation exists no longer. Explanations go beyond accepted science knowledge and theory into a realm where there is no large agreement on any one theory for why observation no longer tracks the base theory. I have enough experience in all this to know the mode today is all about keeping the grant money flowing so they personally will have the funds to figure out the answers to the questions of uncertainty and no evil skeptic gets a dime.
|
|
|
Post by gsharp on Jun 22, 2015 3:39:44 GMT
For my purposes the important planetary contribution is the individual solar displacement from the SSB per planet. These are the figures I work on. Jupiter - 49.16% Saturn - 27.06% Uranus - 8.31% Neptune - 15.41% Total - 99.94% The figures are not my own, but can be tested by observing the Solar distance to SSB when all the planets are in a straight line. When J has S,U,N directly opposite the Sun sits on the other side of the SSB in respect to J (The centre of the Sun is on the Jupiter side of the SSB) showing that the 3 remaining gas giants when grouped slightly overpower J in respect to SSB displacement. This agrees with the values posted. It should be noted that this exact alignment can only occur every 4627.25 years. Landscheidt used this alignment (does not need to be exact) to predict solar grand minimum which he called a "zero crossing" but he was wrong. His prediction along with Fairbridge of a solar grand minimum at 1990 is an example of the error. Uranus and Neptune when together have nearly as much influence as Saturn, so they are of great importance when discussing SIM movements. My discovery was that when the big 4 are in a special position the "normal" inner loop orbit is greatly changed and that solar slowdowns are ALWAYS correlated with this phenomenon. The green inner loop change can only happen when the outer 4 are in the following position. These are solid facts and the facts show that Uranus and Neptune play a very significant role.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 22, 2015 9:07:59 GMT
From the animations we can see that the outer planets U and N are significant after J&S, so you argument about then acting in the same direction for a long time seems justified. I am really beginning to doubt this at the moment. The only two relevant factors appear to be the Inertial force and the gravitational force. Looking at satellite calculations, it seems to be a simple calculation where orbital period is known, gravity at the orbital height is known and the Suns mass is known. However all the calculations i have found rely on the satellite orbiting an object of known mass. It seems a bit meaningingless to use the particular planets mass?
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by greg on Jun 22, 2015 9:34:14 GMT
Andrew, the mass of the satellite is implicit is the orbital period and height. Gravitational attraction is always *between* two masses, it is not one acting on the other. The planet's mass is just as relevant as the solar mass.
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by greg on Jun 22, 2015 10:18:58 GMT
gsharp, yes sun's movement relative to SSB is determined by the planets position, by definition. SSB is centre of mass. If all the planets line up on one side the sun must be at max extent the other side, by definition. Nothing in SS can wander away. I don't see any argument about that. This is distinct from the notion that anything is attracted to SSB by gravity, it is not.
I've been reviewing a few combined periods of planetary obits I keep to work on spectral analysis of climate data.
This is based on the classic 1/p=1/p1-1/p2 to find the time between conjunctions.
Base periods I use: pHg = 0.240846 # = 87.97d pV = 0.615190 # = 224.7d pE = 1 pM = 1.8808 # = 686.67 pJ = 11.8624 pS = 29.46 # years; 10760 days pN = 164.79 pU = 84.323326
p1=pS;p2=pN print "pSN=", 1/(1/p1-1/p2)
pSN= 35.8731500775881
This is very close to three times the period of Jupiter, there is a near resonance between J and SN. This explains why J does not mess up the clover leaf pattern laid down by U,N and S. print pSN/3. 11.9577166925294
Further, combining pSN with pU: print "pSUN=", 1/(1/pSN-1/pU)
pSUN=62.434104129643
This looks like the famous "circa 60y periodicity" in climate.
I come back to the question I raised on TS years ago, "why does this matter"?
Maybe the clue is in recognising that EM essentially orbits the sun, not SSB, so its natural free-fall direction is around the sun. Now if the sun is tracing a complex locus relative to inertial rest point of SS ( leaving aside discussion of much slower movements of SS relative to fixed stars, etc ) then there will presumably be some slow inertial forces on the fluid earth.
In view of the 23.5 deg inclination of the orbit, this could lead to N/S displacement of water and with it heat.
This could provide a possible mechanism for long term changes in major currents like the gulf stream, to cite but one, that could affect climate and also for effects like "polar see-saw": opposing trends in arctic and antarctic sea ice.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jun 22, 2015 11:16:25 GMT
"movements of SS relative to fixed stars" Greg, "fixed stars"? Are there any? How are they fixed? PS: Be gentle. I'm a retired teacher with no scientific qualifications of any sort. just a spectator following the game.
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by greg on Jun 22, 2015 11:31:18 GMT
gsharp, you marked J+S conjunctions in what looks to be 1998 and 2022. That's an interval of 24y. Great conjunctions happened in 1981, 2000 and 2020 and are separated by pJS = 19.8587y
Maybe what you marked was some three planet conjunction, could you clarify?
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by greg on Jun 22, 2015 11:34:23 GMT
"movements of SS relative to fixed stars" Greg, "fixed stars"? Are there any? How are they fixed? PS: Be gentle. I'm a retired teacher with no scientific qualifications of any sort. just a spectator following the game. I don't want to divert into that too much. My comment was just to recognise that the SSB and plane of the ecliptic is not really an inertial frame of reference, but will do for a basic discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jun 22, 2015 11:41:59 GMT
"movements of SS relative to fixed stars" Greg, "fixed stars"? Are there any? How are they fixed? PS: Be gentle. I'm a retired teacher with no scientific qualifications of any sort. just a spectator following the game. I don't want to divert into that too much. My comment was just to recognise that the SSB and plane of the ecliptic is not really an inertial frame of reference, but will do for a basic discussion. Do you think that the fixed stars could have an influence in our SS?
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by greg on Jun 22, 2015 12:03:38 GMT
I don't want to divert into that too much. My comment was just to recognise that the SSB and plane of the ecliptic is not really an inertial frame of reference, but will do for a basic discussion. Do you think that the fixed stars could have an influence in our SS? Fixed stars is term used by astronomers to attempt to define a fixed frame of reference. Nothing is really static. All stars, all other mass in the galaxy has on influence on the galactic path of the solar system ( and hence SSB which represents its total mass as seen from outside ). SS is rotating relative to the stars. We don't have sufficiently long records with sufficient precision to work out fully what that path is. As with most science, a lot of people make some very certain claims based on orthodoxy rather than sufficient evidence of proof. This is all stuff that depend upon 10 digit accuracy numbers and is irrelevant to what is being raised here.
|
|
|
Post by gsharp on Jun 22, 2015 12:18:43 GMT
gsharp, you marked J+S conjunctions in what looks to be 1998 and 2022. That's an interval of 24y. Great conjunctions happened in 1981, 2000 and 2020 and are separated by pJS = 19.8587y Maybe what you marked was some three planet conjunction, could you clarify? The J/S conjunction markers are more of a conceptual marker than specifically dating the exact J/S conjunction. The midway point of the outer loop orbit is determined by the combined positions of the outer 4 which when U/N are near together can shift the balance away from the J/S conjunction. This does not occur when U/N are in opposition. The AM peaks of 1998 and 2022 can be seen on Carl's graph. This further emphasizes my point that the outer 2 are far from inconsequential.
|
|