|
Post by gsharp on Jun 12, 2015 1:27:25 GMT
Barycentre discussions always seem to create much confusion. I am not claiming to be a guru on this topic, but I have researched the area solidly since 2008 and have a peer reviewed paper in IJAA. My paper has been recently reproduced in Solar Physics by McCracken, Beer and Steinhilber. My understandings after several years of plotting JPL ephemeris data suggest: The planets each orbit their own planet/sun barycentre (ie the planets orbit the Sun) The Sun orbits the SSBC or SSB with the planets following. The outer 4 planets providing nearly 100% of the solar motion about the SSB. This graph clearly shows the difference between the Earth/Moon barycentre (EMB) distance to Sun and SSB.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2015 5:55:02 GMT
Barycentre discussions always seem to create much confusion. I am not claiming to be a guru on this topic, but I have researched the area solidly since 2008 and have a peer reviewed paper in IJAA. My paper has been recently reproduced in Solar Physics by McCracken, Beer and Steinhilber. My understandings after several years of plotting JPL ephemeris data suggest: The planets each orbit their own planet/sun barycentre (ie the planets orbit the Sun) The Sun orbits the SSBC or SSB with the planets following. The outer 4 planets providing nearly 100% of the solar motion about the SSB. This graph clearly shows the difference between the Earth/Moon barycentre (EMB) distance to Sun and SSB. Very interesting to see that thanks.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 12, 2015 7:37:30 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. thats why the saturn influence on sun vector is so much shorter than the jupiter influence on the sun vector. the drawing is not too scale and those two vectors were the only two an attempt was to make them some what correctly relative by eyeball guestimate. If you know the forcing by the two planets and the angle of incidence of the two vectors you can use trigonometry to get an accurate figure for the net forcing on the sun and its direction. You can do it pretty close with a ruler and angle finder. Draw the angle, provide a scale for the forcings on the two vectors then use right angles to bisect the angle to give you a scaled net forcing and a direction of travel for the sun. Of course the planets are orbiting so the forcing you get is only instantaneous and it will be changing as the angle between the two planets converge or diverge. two vectors level of forcing and their incidence angle to each other you can calculate the bisecting vector angle and the length of the vector and its forcing. You can determine the angle by simply drawing a right angle off the tip of the two vectors (if they are too scale) and find the bisection point where the legs of the right triangle cross. So if you have an accurate ruler you don't need trigonometry to as close as you can with a pencil and lines.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 12, 2015 8:25:06 GMT
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. thats why the saturn influence on sun vector is so much shorter than the jupiter influence on the sun vector. the drawing is not too scale and those two vectors were the only two an attempt was to make them some what correctly relative by eyeball guestimate. If you know the forcing by the two planets and the angle of incidence of the two vectors you can use trigonometry to get an accurate figure for the net forcing on the sun and its direction. You can do it pretty close with a ruler and angle finder. Draw the angle, provide a scale for the forcings on the two vectors then use right angles to bisect the angle to give you a scaled net forcing and a direction of travel for the sun. Of course the planets are orbiting so the forcing you get is only instantaneous and it will be changing as the angle between the two planets converge or diverge. two vectors level of forcing and their incidence angle to each other you can calculate the bisecting vector angle and the length of the vector and its forcing. You can determine the angle by simply drawing a right angle off the tip of the two vectors (if they are too scale) and find the bisection point where the legs of the right triangle cross. So if you have an accurate ruler you don't need trigonometry to as close as you can with a pencil and lines. You need to calculate the gravitational force to know what the forcing will be. At times Venus and Earth pull more than Jupiter
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 12, 2015 14:52:37 GMT
You need to calculate the gravitational force to know what the forcing will be. At times Venus and Earth pull more than Jupiter Yes, It requires two (at least simple my level) calculations to individually calculate the level of forcing and the distance of the barycenter from the sun. If there is any usefulness to the "pea" its to realize that forcing and distance are not proportional. The pea on the other side of the universe causes the sun to orbit but the orbit the sun would make is no larger than what Jupiter would cause it to do and the pea would have to orbit the entire universe moving at some infinitessimally slow speed. The further out a planet is the slower it must go to stay in orbit. Things traveling too fast will not orbit but there apparently is no limit on the distance or if an object is orbiting or not for it to have an effect on these calculations. The solar system also orbits the galaxy center mass. I am more interested in these facts from the standpoint of what it might imply for the transfer of energy via light throughout the universe. . . .which of course would have dire implications for the greenhouse effect and whether there is a light attracting factor that is related to these magnetic fields as it could potentially create the trigger for the release of photons. The fact you cannot measure light from a cold source with a warmer detector without some electrical engineering trickery seems consistent with that. But that is another topic.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 12, 2015 15:44:50 GMT
See Below No way do I disagree since its exactly what I drew above. . . .albeit not to scale and with Saturn and Jupiter as the only planets. You only left out a few things. 1) that the sun would also head for that deviation point. Thats basic physics. A constant force acting on a frictionless body will always cause that body to move in the direction of the force. There is no known minimum force on a frictionless body that would cause it not to move. 2) you left out whether the objects were in stablized orbit or not. If they had no orbit velocity they would fall towards the sun and the sun would fall toward the planets and they would collide near that point (a bit before there centers get to the barycenter). But in a stablized orbit the sun is going to circle the barycenter. If you have only two earths in the system at right angles and a few light years from the sun the deviation would be the same but the orbit of the sun around the barycenter would be much larger and in recognition of stablized orbits the period of that orbit would be very long. Replace the earths with 2 Jupiters in the same positions as the earths and the deviation will be greater and the orbit of the sun around the barycenter as a result will also be greater. These can be calculated using trigonometry. Andre In these binary systems there is no deviation of the barycenter. The deviation gets introduced by adding planets to the system and you end up with this barycenter moving all over the place with multiple deviations and different forces being applied to the sun. >>You only left out a few things. 1. >>that the sun would also head for that deviation point. Thats basic physics. A constant force acting on a frictionless body will always cause that body to move in the direction of the force. There is no known minimum force on a frictionless body that would cause it not to move. Why did you add that comment??? Why are you constantly adding these comments?Nobody in astrophysics is disputing the sun is influenced by the planets so it should not be necessary to include that 2. My thought experiment was just the solar system with the addition of a new stationary object at Earth distance >>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. I do not understand this text.If we change the thought experiment and place all of the planets in line on the same side of the Sun and exclude the Earth and place the Earth 90 degrees to the line and have a normal solar system but then stop the Earth, the Earth will not pass thru the barycenter. The gravitational pull is according to newtons gravity law where gravity weakens at the square of the distance so Jupiter Saturn Uranus, Neptune combined have less influence on the falling earth than Mercury and Venus combined. The situation is a bit complex because it takes 65 days for the Earth to hit the Sun. The Mars Jupiter Saturn etc force will be almost constant while the Suns force increases rapidly. There is though an almosts constant jupiter force upon the falling Earth of 0.0062% of the beginning Solar force but the constant jupiter force is only a bit less than the force venus would apply at impact if venus remained in line with Jupiter. Saturn and beyond only apply a very small force upon the falling Earth. >>In these binary systems there is no deviation of the barycenter. That animation shows the barycenter in a fixed position where the Frame Of Reference (FoR) is the BC. The BC is always in a fixed position for the FoR of the BC. Usually we have shown the BC with the FoR of the Sun. Andrew, the reason for that is because you are essentially having to learn basic applied astrology, which is what you are discussing here. You cannot 'nickel-and-dime' this, but rather learn it as you would anything else, but one cannot perform algebra, trigonometry and calculus without first learning how to add, subtract, divide and multiply. This is advanced applied astrology and astrometeorology. In order to learn one must start at the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 13, 2015 5:45:00 GMT
>>You only left out a few things. 1. >>that the sun would also head for that deviation point. Thats basic physics. A constant force acting on a frictionless body will always cause that body to move in the direction of the force. There is no known minimum force on a frictionless body that would cause it not to move. Why did you add that comment??? Why are you constantly adding these comments?Nobody in astrophysics is disputing the sun is influenced by the planets so it should not be necessary to include that 2. My thought experiment was just the solar system with the addition of a new stationary object at Earth distance >>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. I do not understand this text.If we change the thought experiment and place all of the planets in line on the same side of the Sun and exclude the Earth and place the Earth 90 degrees to the line and have a normal solar system but then stop the Earth, the Earth will not pass thru the barycenter. The gravitational pull is according to newtons gravity law where gravity weakens at the square of the distance so Jupiter Saturn Uranus, Neptune combined have less influence on the falling earth than Mercury and Venus combined. The situation is a bit complex because it takes 65 days for the Earth to hit the Sun. The Mars Jupiter Saturn etc force will be almost constant while the Suns force increases rapidly. There is though an almosts constant jupiter force upon the falling Earth of 0.0062% of the beginning Solar force but the constant jupiter force is only a bit less than the force venus would apply at impact if venus remained in line with Jupiter. Saturn and beyond only apply a very small force upon the falling Earth. >>In these binary systems there is no deviation of the barycenter. That animation shows the barycenter in a fixed position where the Frame Of Reference (FoR) is the BC. The BC is always in a fixed position for the FoR of the BC. Usually we have shown the BC with the FoR of the Sun. Andrew, the reason for that is because you are essentially having to learn basic applied astrology, which is what you are discussing here. You cannot 'nickel-and-dime' this, but rather learn it as you would anything else, but one cannot perform algebra, trigonometry and calculus without first learning how to add, subtract, divide and multiply. This is advanced applied astrology and astrometeorology. In order to learn one must start at the beginning. Another dishonest reply where you create only an illusion of superiority
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 13, 2015 6:24:24 GMT
You need to calculate the gravitational force to know what the forcing will be. At times Venus and Earth pull more than Jupiter Yes, It requires two (at least simple my level) calculations to individually calculate the level of forcing and the distance of the barycenter from the sun. If there is any usefulness to the "pea" its to realize that forcing and distance are not proportional. The pea on the other side of the universe causes the sun to orbit but the orbit the sun would make is no larger than what Jupiter would cause it to do and the pea would have to orbit the entire universe moving at some infinitessimally slow speed. The further out a planet is the slower it must go to stay in orbit. Things traveling too fast will not orbit but there apparently is no limit on the distance or if an object is orbiting or not for it to have an effect on these calculations. The solar system also orbits the galaxy center mass. I am more interested in these facts from the standpoint of what it might imply for the transfer of energy via light throughout the universe. . . .which of course would have dire implications for the greenhouse effect and whether there is a light attracting factor that is related to these magnetic fields as it could potentially create the trigger for the release of photons. The fact you cannot measure light from a cold source with a warmer detector without some electrical engineering trickery seems consistent with that. But that is another topic. So finally we might have reached a common understanding of barycenter and for health reasons it is probably better that I never again wonder why Nautonnier thinks Svalgaard is an idiot or why you want to create some meanings from cold light when a human eye can see a glowing fungus and it takes an engineered solution to detect a single photon in a warm detector
|
|
|
Post by gsharp on Jun 13, 2015 6:32:23 GMT
Svalgaard was wrong when he said the Sun was stationary and the SSB moved around it. If that were true we would never find exoplanets using the radial velocity measure method.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 13, 2015 6:33:58 GMT
Svalgaard was wrong when he said the Sun was stationary and the SSB moved around it. If that were true we would never find exoplanets using the radial velocity measure. He is not saying that!!!
|
|
|
Post by gsharp on Jun 13, 2015 7:22:21 GMT
Leif Svalgaard August 2, 2008 at 7:05 am
papertiger: the Sun’s orbit around the solar system’s center of gravity, and makes a case for it being in direct control of Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Should we be compensating the flux value for that wiggle also?
No, as the wiggle is purely fictive. It is not the Sun that moves, but the center of gravity that moves as the planets move around.......
----------------------------------------
Am I reading it wrong perhaps?
Carsten questions Svalgaard but does not get a correct response. Remember Svalgaard is not an astronomer, its hard to be an expert in all fields.
------------------------------------ Carsten Arnholm, Norway August 2, 2008 at 11:37 am
Leif Svalgaard:
“No, as the wiggle is purely fictive. It is not the Sun that moves, but the center of gravity that moves as the planets move around.”
Can you clarify this please. I think this is wrong,......
The sun clearly wiggles….
--------------------------- If Svalgaard thinks the Sun is not moved by the planets it is no wonder he has trouble with planetary theory?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 13, 2015 7:33:05 GMT
If the sun does wiggle, it can't be huge step to understand the forces required to do this could well have effects on the contents of the sun. This could effect activity.... NASA is teaching our kids that the sun wobbles, and providing graphics for posters to use in far flung Internet forums spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 13, 2015 7:40:36 GMT
Leif Svalgaard August 2, 2008 at 7:05 am papertiger: the Sun’s orbit around the solar system’s center of gravity, and makes a case for it being in direct control of Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Should we be compensating the flux value for that wiggle also? No, as the wiggle is purely fictive. It is not the Sun that moves, but the center of gravity that moves as the planets move around....... ---------------------------------------- Am I reading it wrong perhaps? Carsten questions Svalgaard but does not get a correct response. Remember Svalgaard is not an astronomer, its hard to be an expert in all fields. ------------------------------------ Carsten Arnholm, Norway August 2, 2008 at 11:37 am Leif Svalgaard: “No, as the wiggle is purely fictive. It is not the Sun that moves, but the center of gravity that moves as the planets move around.” Can you clarify this please. I think this is wrong,...... The sun clearly wiggles….--------------------------- If Svalgaard thinks the Sun is not moved by the planets it is no wonder he has trouble with planetary theory? Did you read the entire discussion between Carsten and Svalbaard??
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 13, 2015 7:43:13 GMT
If the sun does wiggle, it can't be huge step to understand the forces required to do this could well have effects on the contents of the sun. This could effect activity.... NASA is teaching our kids that the sun wobbles, and providing graphics for posters to use in far flung Internet forums spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/The sun wiggles via changes in a very very weak gravitational 'field'. It cannot feel anything from this other than very small changes in velocity. In gravity we fall and by definition an orbit is where falling forces are balanced by the force that acts to keep us wanting to travel in a straight line. If you place an Object like the Sun in the gravitational field of an object like Jupiter at the same sun jupiter distance with the same masses, then the Sun gets faster and faster as it falls towards 'Jupiter'. After 65 days, from a standing start, the Sun has speeded up to be travelling at 1.5 Meters per second.
|
|
|
Post by gsharp on Jun 13, 2015 7:47:58 GMT
The only response from Svalgaard posted by you is:
Leif Svalgaard August 2, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Carsten Arnholm: When one says that something moves one must also say in relation to what. As the question was if the radio flux would have to be adjusted because of the Sun’s ‘movement’, the reference point was clearly the Earth. I gave an observational test that shows that the Earth also moves such that the distance between the Sun and the Earth is that corresponding to no other planets present [the Sun and the Earth moving around ‘their’ center of mass – to high precision, if we take the barycenter to be the arbitrary reference point], hence no ‘jerking around’ of the Sun by the other planets. Did you take the trouble to go check the Figures? Or the SORCE TSI? So, just as TSI is observed not to be influenced by the wiggle, so is the f10.7 flux also not affected, as that was the answer I gave. It is utterly amazing that people still don’t get this. ------------------
Svalgaard has not addressed the issue raised by Carsten?
No one can say the Sun does not feel the "wiggle". We can only say according to our current understanding the Sun does not feel the quite massive changes provided by the planets (ie millions of kms shifts from the SSB and a 100% change in radial velocity). As pointed out we are currently observing real physical changes on the Sun via Doppler measurements.
|
|