greg
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by greg on Jun 20, 2015 13:23:44 GMT
what's more relevant is J.
G-ratio with J is 620, period is 7. So even allowing for its slower movement, it's about 1% of effect of Jupiter.
YOur calc: "...one direction for 9 years giving 13,000km of Solar movement"
WP quotes 500,000km with all planets aligned. N Looks just about detectable but not worth spending much time worrying about.
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by greg on Jun 20, 2015 13:27:43 GMT
"By my estimation what you first said on tallblokes in that particular thread about Neptune is not correct."
Hey this is getting a bit tiresome. If you want to question what I said somewhere : quote it. I'm not going to chase it down from a vague "what you first said ".
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 20, 2015 13:36:46 GMT
"By my estimation what you first said on tallblokes in that particular thread about Neptune is not correct." Hey this is getting a bit tiresome. If you want to question what I said somewhere : quote it. I'm not going to chase it down from a vague "what you first said ". Thanks. All of this being relevant for this conversation: tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/greg-goodman-lunar-solar-influence-on-sea-surface-temperature/-------------------------- Greg Goodman says: March 3, 2013 at 12:00 am TB:I contend that SIM shouldn’t be ignored…However, Neptune has an effect on solar inertial motion much larger than inner planets It does ? How?-------------------------- tallbloke says: March 3, 2013 at 12:10 am By having a considerably bigger mass and a much slower orbit. ------------------------- Greg Goodman says: March 3, 2013 at 12:35 am I don’t think you’re totally free of barycentre thinking here.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 20, 2015 13:50:58 GMT
what's more relevant is J. G-ratio with J is 620, period is 7. So even allowing for its slower movement, it's about 1% of effect of Jupiter. YOur calc: "...one direction for 9 years giving 13,000km of Solar movement" WP quotes 500,000km with all planets aligned. N Looks just about detectable but not worth spending much time worrying about. All this is by my estimation and calculation. However: astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/renaissance/gravcalc.htmlwww.ambrsoft.com/CalcPhysics/acceleration/acceleration.htmJupiter pulling in one direction for 243 days creates 40,000km of solar movement Neptune pulling in one direction for 9 years creates 13,000km of Solar movement Mercury pulling in one direction for 5 days creates 4km of solar movement
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by greg on Jun 20, 2015 14:24:22 GMT
What I said ... "It does ? How?"
How can you think that is wrong ?! It's a question. Obviously not going anywhere with that , drop it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 20, 2015 14:28:06 GMT
I've emailed you the JPL chapter 8 >> For the final (integration) phase of the ephemeris creation process, there are three main ingredients, each of which constitutes a major phase itself: • the equations of motion describing the gravitational physics which govern the dynamical motions of the bodies, • a method for integrating the equations of motion , and • the initial conditions and dynamical constants; i.e., the starting positions and velocities of the bodies at some initial epoch along with the values for various constants which affect the motion (e.g., planetary masses). >> No mention of barycentres. Thanks for sending me the text of the JPL document referred to by Talkbloke. There is quite a bit of mention of barycenters one way or another in that chapter Eg 8.3.2 Solar-System BarycenterDuring the process of numerical integration the equations of motion for only the Moon and planets were actually evaluated and integrated. The barycentric position and velocity of the Sun were obtained from the equations of the barycenter. It should be noted that each of the two barycenter equations depends upon the other, requiring an iteration during the evaluation of the solar position and velocity.
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by greg on Jun 20, 2015 14:36:34 GMT
what's more relevant is J. G-ratio with J is 620, period is 7. So even allowing for its slower movement, it's about 1% of effect of Jupiter. YOur calc: "...one direction for 9 years giving 13,000km of Solar movement" WP quotes 500,000km with all planets aligned. N Looks just about detectable but not worth spending much time worrying about. All this is by my estimation and calculation. However: astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/renaissance/gravcalc.htmlwww.ambrsoft.com/CalcPhysics/acceleration/acceleration.htmJupiter pulling in one direction for 243 days creates 40,000km of solar movement Neptune pulling in one direction for 9 years creates 13,000km of Solar movement Mercury pulling in one direction for 5 days creates 4km of solar movement Ok, on the crude linear accel that you are using displacement would be proportional to t^2 , so the grav force ratio I gave before of 620 would give about 25 , ie 4%. Your figures suggest 33% . Rather than button clicking I suggest you write down your calculations in numbers. Those sites give you the formulae and the constant G. Simple algebra. Check it on a calculator or something and see if you get the same result. If you do present the numbers here and I'll see whether anything seems wrong.
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by greg on Jun 20, 2015 14:49:47 GMT
There is quite a bit of mention of barycenters one way or another in that chapter Eg 8.3.2 Solar-System BarycenterDuring the process of numerical integration the equations of motion for only the Moon and planets were actually evaluated and integrated. The barycentric position and velocity of the Sun were obtained from the equations of the barycenter. It should be noted that each of the two barycenter equations depends upon the other, requiring an iteration during the evaluation of the solar position and velocity. That is referring to coordinates being given in a barycentric referential frame, that is one of the output options. To do that they need to evaluate the position of the barycentre. It say nothing about the the motions of the planets being barycentric or calculated as such. The header I quoted states that they are calculated from physical equation of gravity.
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by greg on Jun 20, 2015 15:26:22 GMT
It seems like you have an error in those calculations but whatever they are you are calculating the effect of Neptune on the SSB, so remind me why this matters.
This comes back to the same thing, that N has a small but measurable effect on SSB but it's gravitational effect is tiny. Thus SSB will linked to some extent to the position of N whereas the direction of the net gravitational force on the sun will be almost totally independent of it. Quite a good illustration of why the SSB is not the centre of attraction and why nothing is orbiting SSB.
I'm quite interested in the changes in perihelion and that what that implies about orbital eccentricity. I think that does merit more work.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 20, 2015 15:40:53 GMT
It seems like you have an error in those calculations but whatever they are you are calculating the effect of Neptune on the SSB, so remind me why this matters. This comes back to the same thing, that N has a small but measurable effect on SSB but it's gravitational effect is tiny. Thus SSB will linked to some extent to the position of N whereas the direction of the net gravitational force on the sun will be almost totally independent of it. Quite a good illustration of why the SSB is not the centre of attraction and why nothing is orbiting SSB. I'm quite interested in the changes in perihelion and that what that implies about orbital eccentricity. I think that does merit more work. Geoff all that matters to me at the moment is that somebody is wrong on the internet. I can see Tallbloke is wrong and I can see I agreed with nearly everything you have said so far. If you are correct about Neptune I could more easily approach Tallbloke - the guy who says he had a motor cycle accident and it affected his memory and thinking abilities and see how it pans out. Even if you are wrong about Neptune only, I might still be able to approach tallbloke and see how it turns out. It is just interesting to see it worked thru.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 20, 2015 18:35:31 GMT
Ok, on the crude linear accel that you are using displacement would be proportional to t^2 , so the grav force ratio I gave before of 620 would give about 25 , ie 4%. Your figures suggest 33% . Rather than button clicking I suggest you write down your calculations in numbers. Those sites give you the formulae and the constant G. Simple algebra. Check it on a calculator or something and see if you get the same result. If you do present the numbers here and I'll see whether anything seems wrong. Here is the acceleration calculation. I got the same results as by the calculator. I checked thru all of your gravity ratios from mercury to Neptune and they were fine apart from your Mars value. Mars is not important at the moment if ever. D= 1/2 *a*t2 (t is squared) Jupiter t=20degrees/360degrees*12years *365*24*60*60 D=1/2 *2.09E-7 * 21024000squared D=1/2 *2.09E-7 * 4.42008576000000E14 D=1/2 *2.09 * 4.42008576000000E7 D=1/2 * 9.238E7 D=4.619E7 meters D=46190km calculator says 46200 Neptune t=20degrees/360degrees*165 years *365*24*60*60 secs D=1/2 *3.36E-10 * 289080000 secs squared D=1/2 *3.36E-10 * 8.35672464E16 D=1/2 *3.36 * 8.35672464E6 D=1/2 *2.808E7 D=1.404E7 D=14040km calculator says 14039 Neptune's period is about 7 times longer than Jupiter's. what's more relevant is J. G-ratio with J is 620, period is 7. So even allowing for its slower movement, it's about 1% of effect of Jupiter. I am supposing that your figure of 7 is not so important for our point of difference, however in case it does make a difference for your estimations, using Neptunes 165 years and Jupiters 12 years the ratio of Neptunes orbital period to Jupiter's is 13.75:1
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by greg on Jun 21, 2015 0:29:48 GMT
Good catch, it looks like I slipped a line and read the period of Uranus to get 7. It looks like your factor of 3 for this crude calculation is about right.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 21, 2015 6:13:46 GMT
It was TB, by insisting on earth-sun barycentre as the centre of earth orbit who was effectively saying other planets did not matter. He berated me in emails for being to picky and told me to take it somewhere else, before banning me permanently from his Toss-shop. The follow up was: >> Greg Goodman says: March 3, 2013 at 12:35 am I don’t think you’re totally free of barycentre thinking here. Could you try to express mathematically what kind of effect you think matters ? Maybe I’m missing the point. > That "barycentre thinking" seems to be what send into palpitations. He never did reply with a mathematical explanation of why a very, very distant planet should be significant. It could affect the position of the SSB but then the whole of the other thread was about debunking the SSB idea. Replacing one barycentre with another one does not seem too logical having established that barycentres are not the point of attraction. It seems to me that talk of SIM is just a back-door way of arguing for SSB. I may be missing something but TB was unable to come up with anything concrete. In fact, he did not reply to the question. Greg, It seems to me there are two issues regarding the idea of a barycenter. 1. The incorrect idea an object is drawn to a gravitational center associated with the mathematical point created from mass and distance which is known as CoM or a barycenter. This was the idea you were so excellent at illustrating just how absurd that idea is. Versus 2. The correct idea the Sun must respond in some manner to the planets gravity and must be 'in an orbit' around a point in space which as far as I know is not called a barycenter. You say: >>It seems to me that talk of SIM is just a back-door way of arguing for SSB. I do not see it as a way of arguing for 1. What actually do you mean by 'talk of SIM'? Earlier you agreed the Sun is influenced by the planets so SIM appears to something more than just talk?
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by greg on Jun 21, 2015 7:03:40 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.
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by greg on Jun 21, 2015 8:51:37 GMT
You'll probably find this interesting: www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/ssbarycenter.htmlWe see the three lobed pattern due to Saturn, the heart shape of each lobe due to Neptune and Uranus. By time this gets swung around by Jupiter, it's a bit less legible but the three lobed pattern is still there. This shows the importance of the outer planets to solar position relative to SSB . Caveat Emptor: I do not know how reliable this software is. It seems to be doing a rather simplistic model. I'm not sure that position relative to SSB has any implications. This is my essential "why does it matter" question. It would be more interesting to see how the variations of EM-sun distance depends on the other planets: what's left when you subtract Jupiter's effect. This brings me back to the graphs I posted earlier and the possibility of a celestial driver for circa 13y periodicity in SST. That could be an important result. Scafetta has already shown that the 9.1y period is the main difference between earth's orbit and the locus of the EM barycentre, ie it is caused by the presence of the moon. I have pointed out that is it probably the frequency mean of 8.85y and 9.3y ( 18.6/2 ). AFAIK, that is not in the literature.
|
|