|
Post by Andrew on Jun 13, 2015 7:53:42 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. Leif is saying if you take the reference point of Earth, then the Sun is not observed to be jerked around by the other planets
|
|
|
Post by gsharp on Jun 13, 2015 7:56:37 GMT
“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.” ----------------- When he says the centre of gravity moves it makes his statement very clear. This is obviously wrong. He has always had problems with this concept, the centre of gravity never moves, the Sun moves from the central point to balance out against the planets. The SSB is stationary.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 13, 2015 8:00:46 GMT
“ 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.” ----------------- When he says the centre of gravity moves it makes his statement very clear. This is obviously wrong. He has always had problems with this concept, the centre of gravity never moves, the Sun moves from the central point to balance out against the planets. The SSB is stationary. We orbit the Sun. From the Suns point of view the barycenter moves around the Sun and the Sun takes us with it.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 13, 2015 8:04:43 GMT
“ 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.” ----------------- When he says the centre of gravity moves it makes his statement very clear. This is obviously wrong. He has always had problems with this concept, the centre of gravity never moves, the Sun moves from the central point to balance out against the planets. The SSB is stationary. We orbit the Sun. From the Suns point of view the barycenter moves around the Sun and the Sun takes us with it. I think if you were to stand on the sun and speed up time, it would be like standing on a roundabout with the axle being off centre..... Considering it takes a photon 100,000's of years to pass from the centre of the sun to the outer parts.....is it not conceivable some sort of 'sloshing' or harmonic tremor may be resonating??
|
|
|
Post by gsharp on Jun 13, 2015 8:11:28 GMT
We orbit the Sun. From the Suns point of view the barycenter moves around the Sun and the Sun takes us with it
You are changing his words. Better to own up he got it wrong.
He goes on later with the same mistake:
hence no ‘jerking around’ of the Sun by the other planets
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 13, 2015 8:25:03 GMT
We orbit the Sun. From the Suns point of view the barycenter moves around the Sun and the Sun takes us with it
You are changing his words. Better to own up he got it wrong. He goes on later with the same mistake: hence no ‘jerking around’ of the Sun by the other planets
Geoff He very very clearly says that in the earlier comments the reference point was the earth >> I gave an observational test that shows that the Earth also moves.....hence no ‘jerking around’ of the Sun by the other planets Therefore We orbit the Sun. From the Suns point of view the barycenter moves around the Sun and the Sun takes us with itTo a very high precision the Earth moves with the Sun and the Sun is not seen to be jerked around as seen from the Earth.
|
|
|
Post by gsharp on Jun 13, 2015 9:40:59 GMT
It is very hard to understand what you have written Andrew.
Which parts are Svalgaards and which parts are yours?
I gave an observational test that shows that the Earth also moves.....hence no ‘jerking around’ of the Sun by the other planets
Is the above statement two bits taken and put together by yourself or one sentence from Svalgaard?
I dont have time for further follow up tonight...but will return tomorrow.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 13, 2015 9:55:09 GMT
It is very hard to understand what you have written Andrew. Which parts are Svalgaards and which parts are yours? I gave an observational test that shows that the Earth also moves.....hence no ‘jerking around’ of the Sun by the other planetsIs the above statement two bits taken and put together by yourself or one sentence from Svalgaard? I dont have time for further follow up tonight...but will return tomorrow. Cheers From the svalgaard text you provided, taken from wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/01/as-if-we-didnt-know-sidc-issues-all-quiet-alert-for-the-sun/Leif says: 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
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 13, 2015 15:59:46 GMT
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 What is *dishonest* Andrew is your presumption that the things you are only now learning somehow is 'new' to everyone, that is not only narcissistic but childish. The only one creating any so-called 'illusion of superiority' is you. I don't much like you calling others on this board 'liars' simply because you are not on the same level of knowledge and understanding as others. Quit with the immaturity and low brow name-calling and get all 52 cards into your deck before you come off as knowing more than you actually do. And, In the world of professional forecasting you either put up or shut up. Talk is cheap - never forget that.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 13, 2015 19:36:16 GMT
Another dishonest reply where you create only an illusion of superiority What is *dishonest* Andrew is your presumption that the things you are only now learning somehow is 'new' to everyone, that is not only narcissistic but childish. The only one creating any so-called 'illusion of superiority' is you. I don't much like you calling others on this board 'liars' simply because you are not on the same level of knowledge and understanding as others. Quit with the immaturity and low brow name-calling and get all 52 cards into your deck before you come off as knowing more than you actually do. And, In the world of professional forecasting you either put up or shut up. Talk is cheap - never forget that. >>you are not on the same level of knowledge and understanding as others. Funny coming from the guy who accidently proved the greenhouse effect was simple physics while attempting to falsify it and then pretended he had not made a bit of a boo boo.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 14, 2015 3:42:30 GMT
It is very hard to understand what you have written Andrew. Which parts are Svalgaards and which parts are yours? I gave an observational test that shows that the Earth also moves.....hence no ‘jerking around’ of the Sun by the other planetsIs the above statement two bits taken and put together by yourself or one sentence from Svalgaard? I dont have time for further follow up tonight...but will return tomorrow. Cheers From the svalgaard text you provided, taken from wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/01/as-if-we-didnt-know-sidc-issues-all-quiet-alert-for-the-sun/Leif says: 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 It may be true that from the reference point of the earth/solar barycenter that there is extremely low or no jerking around in terms of the earths orbit around the sun. That would be because the other planets would be moving both the sun and the earth by way of the gravitational pull of the center mass of the remaining planets (not this is not the SSBC but a new concept lets call it OPCM for other planet center mass) and that would be equally moving the sun/earth barycenter. Any difference in movement by the sun and earth would be due to the difference in distance to the OPCM from them. This would be minimal because the raw pull by the OPCM on the sun is very small and the difference in pull on the earth would be what you can get out of 1au difference in distance at most. Since the OPCM is probably more than 5au from the sun the difference in pull would be about about 1/5th of the pull on the sun (which would be perhaps just a tiny bit more than what Jupiter provides alone. People are extrapolating animals. We get a little bit of information and extrapolate that information based on our life experiences. Since our experience in manipulating the sun is zero and since the sun is like nothing on earth (nuclear) what can we believe we know? We have zero basis. May as well be flopping like a fish out of water chanting at the stars. All we have is interesting patterns in solar behavior. The solar cycle is interesting in the fact its major period is about the same as Jupiters orbit. The planet with the most effect on sun. Svalgaard may want to deceive you with his earth/sun barycenter reference point because he can't say the same about the sun and jupiter from the perspective of the earth/sun barycenter, but he might be able to say the same thing about Jupiters orbit from the perspective of the Jupiter/sun barycenter. Fact is the jerking around does not occur on the earth from the perspective of the barycenter the earth controls. And I would wager a months wages that Svalgaard never measured earths orbit around the sun from the perspective of the SSBC. However the jerking around by jupiter has negligible effects on anything measured on earth, but we are not talking about this world.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 14, 2015 6:13:32 GMT
It may be true that from the reference point of the earth/solar barycenter that there is extremely low or no jerking around in terms of the earths orbit around the sun. That would be because the other planets would be moving both the sun and the earth by way of the gravitational pull of the center mass of the remaining planets (not this is not the SSBC but a new concept lets call it OPCM for other planet center mass) and that would be equally moving the sun/earth barycenter. Any difference in movement by the sun and earth would be due to the difference in distance to the OPCM from them. This would be minimal because the raw pull by the OPCM on the sun is very small and the difference in pull on the earth would be what you can get out of 1au difference in distance at most. Since the OPCM is probably more than 5au from the sun the difference in pull would be about about 1/5th of the pull on the sun (which would be perhaps just a tiny bit more than what Jupiter provides alone. This text is almost unreadable. I can only guess at what you are saying. Your OPCM is just the planets pull minus Earth. The only thing pulling the sun around is the planets. moving both the sun and the earth by way of the gravitational pull of the center massWhat meaning are you creating by saying gravitational pull of the center mass?? Why not just say "the gravitational pull of the center mass of the remaining planets"?? Since the OPCM is probably more than 5au from the sun the difference in pull would be about about 1/5th of the pull on the sun (which would be perhaps just a tiny bit more than what Jupiter provides alone. I have no idea what you are getting at with your 5AU. You can calculate Jupiters pull on Earth and upon the Sun using the calculators i already mentioned. Jupiter at 778,000,000KM from the Sun produces an acceleration of 2.09X10minus7 on the Sun Jupiter at 650,000,000Km from the Earth produces an acceleration of 3.31X10minus7 on the Earth Earth moves 12,000km relative to the sun if both are constantly pulled by Jupiter for 6 months and the sun earth distance remains fixed at the maximum difference, so the amount the Earth moves is about 6000km, which is 0.004% of the Earths orbit around the Sun Svalgaard may want to deceive you with his earth/sun barycenter reference point Svalgaard correctly said it was not necessary to compensate the radio flux we measure for the Suns 'movement'. I would wager a months wages that Svalgaard never measured earths orbit around the sun from the perspective of the SSBC. Until we get out of the solar system any detector positioned in space will be moved by everything in the solar system. All we can do is calculate the gravitational pull and work from the available data. The best available data and calculations show the Earth moves with respect to the SSBC
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 14, 2015 17:48:32 GMT
It should not be too difficult to navigate Andrew. It simply says that a finding of no deviation in the orbit earth around the sun from the perspective of the barycenter does not say that there is no deviation of the earth and sun as a unit in relationship to the other planets.
There has been a lot of talk and implication that all objects are not drawn to the center mass of the solar system and actually continuously move in that direction in the absence of other motions otherwise induced(such as an orbital motion or an increasing inertia and graviational pull coming from a fall towards the suns surface) (you produced the earth falling to the sun as an argument against the notion but as the earth accelerates toward the sun a new motion is being introduced and least from the standpoint of magnitude and the orbital motion the earth had was eliminated what were you trying to prove?)
If no other such other motions existed all the planets and sun would move toward and collide in a big fiery ball with the planets streaming in at different intervals somewhere along the path toward where ever the barycenter was at the moment. And there would be no jerking around of anything just some sudden stops of the planets and jolts on the sun as the planets make impact. All planets would impact on that line at the time their barycenter with the sun approached deadcenter on the sun. Meaning that Jupiter as it approached the sun would increase its gravitational influence on the sun while at the same time its influence on the barycenter would be decreasing.
But it is not the case that there are no other motions. It is the other motions particularly orbital motion that provides the changes in direction of the sun. The sun is traveling along the barycenter path constantly accelerating and decelerating as the gravitational pulls of the planet change their direction and the force vectors created more from cooperation to opposition.
Is this really such a difficult concept to understand? I stated sometime ago that physic suggests that the center of gravity and the barycenter may not be identical in all respects. We have discussed some of those differences like how the distance of the barycenter from the sun is not proportional to the gravitational pulls of a planet.
But if anybody wants to make a case that all objects are not drawn to the center of mass they should do so mathematically using appropriate diagrams to show that to be the case to ensure that the thought experiment they are living in is simply not the product of an insane mind. The general rule as I understand it that there is no difference. If I am wrong it doesn't help to just tell me I am muddled up and that Joe is wrong and Frank is right.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 14, 2015 19:09:31 GMT
It should not be too difficult to navigate Andrew. It simply says that a finding of no deviation in the orbit earth around the sun from the perspective of the barycenter does not say that there is no deviation of the earth and sun as a unit in relationship to the other planets. There has been a lot of talk and implication that all objects are not drawn to the center mass of the solar system and actually continuously move in that direction in the absence of other motions otherwise induced(such as an orbital motion or an increasing inertia and graviational pull coming from a fall towards the suns surface) (you produced the earth falling to the sun as an argument against the notion but as the earth accelerates toward the sun a new motion is being introduced and least from the standpoint of magnitude and the orbital motion the earth had was eliminated what were you trying to prove?) If no other such other motions existed all the planets and sun would move toward and collide in a big fiery ball with the planets streaming in at different intervals somewhere along the path toward where ever the barycenter was at the moment. And there would be no jerking around of anything just some sudden stops of the planets and jolts on the sun as the planets make impact. All planets would impact on that line at the time their barycenter with the sun approached deadcenter on the sun. Meaning that Jupiter as it approached the sun would increase its gravitational influence on the sun while at the same time its influence on the barycenter would be decreasing. But it is not the case that there are no other motions. It is the other motions particularly orbital motion that provides the changes in direction of the sun. The sun is traveling along the barycenter path constantly accelerating and decelerating as the gravitational pulls of the planet change their direction and the force vectors created more from cooperation to opposition. Is this really such a difficult concept to understand? I stated sometime ago that physic suggests that the center of gravity and the barycenter may not be identical in all respects. We have discussed some of those differences like how the distance of the barycenter from the sun is not proportional to the gravitational pulls of a planet. But if anybody wants to make a case that all objects are not drawn to the center of mass they should do so mathematically using appropriate diagrams to show that to be the case to ensure that the thought experiment they are living in is simply not the product of an insane mind. The general rule as I understand it that there is no difference. If I am wrong it doesn't help to just tell me I am muddled up and that Joe is wrong and Frank is right. If i single out your last paragraph then you seem to be saying you believe objects are gravitationally drawn to the center of mass of the solar system. So I have a question for you. Do you believe objects are gravitationally drawn to the center of mass of the solar system?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 14, 2015 20:08:45 GMT
If i single out your last paragraph then you seem to be saying you believe objects are gravitationally drawn to the center of mass of the solar system. So I have a question for you. Do you believe objects are gravitationally drawn to the center of mass of the solar system?I think you need to go back and reread the previous post. The answer is yes they are gravitationally drawn to the solar system center mass. That gravitational force is the sum total of all gravitational forces in the solar system. However, I also said they may not move consistently in that direction. The barycenter describes a location in space where the various forces are in balance. There are positions in the solar system where the net gravitational pull of the center mass is less than the gravitational pull of a closer object. Also objects carrying an inertia in a direction other than the barycenter will not head directly for the barycenter or may travel through a zone where the gravitational pull of a closer object exceeds that of the center mass. (for this one has to keep in mind the sun is heading for the center mass too). but as I see it all this is just hairsplitting is to get you to better understand what is going on. Its really inapplicable to the problem at hand, it just that you started out thinking that the center mass was not the location objects are generally drawn to because of an observation an object might instead head for a collision with the sun. But thats what trajectories are made up of. With all the moving parts and the possibility of closer objects having more influence than the center mass different results can be achieved. In the case of a perpendicular earth it would seem it would be closer to the sun than the center of mass and likely would not travel through the barycenter if it fell. What angle would it take to cause the center of mass to have more influence than the sun I am not sure but I am sure it would depend upon how everything else was moving also and how the barycenter might change its position from the fall.
|
|