|
Post by Andrew on Jun 13, 2015 6:42:39 GMT
You are losing the plot here Andrew, trying to argue your physics instead of looking at the correlations. If you really want a physical link I suggest you read up on Wolff & Patrone.In the meantime show me a grand minimum in the Holocene solar proxy record or sunspot record that does not align with the following planetary alignment. (hint...there is one) I was referring to my comments posted here regarding "gravitational centre". Thanks for making it clear you meant somewhere on my blog etc. If you can find fault with my data I will agree with your paper mentioned in this thread...if you cant find fault I would suggest your paper mentioned is bogus. Geoff, That comment was unnecessary. I began reading your site and reported what I found. Given you had said the SSBC was a gravitational center and you were saying the SSBC was a balance point of the Solar system I then wondered what significances there could be to the SSBC being in or out of the Sun and asked you how that could impact your theory by asking you if you were saying this mass balance point moving in and out of the Sun was relevant to your theory? Instead of attacking me going to your web site that you linked to I think it would be better to think about the wording you have in the page so that all of your thoughts on this topic are in alignment.
|
|
|
Post by gsharp on Jun 13, 2015 6:48:27 GMT
Andrew, no big deal, just happy to have your clarification, I was searching the thread thinking you were referring to it. I am not sure the movement of the SSB is important, its more about the forces exerted on the Sun, especially at the tachocline. My feeling is there is a difference in the sheer layer during the 10 year disordered orbit, which is currently being measured by doppler measurements that show the solar rotation rate slowing (torsional oscillation). If you want an example of physical change this is a good place to start.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 13, 2015 6:52:30 GMT
Andrew, no big deal, just happy to have your clarification, I was searching the thread thinking you were referring to it. I am not sure the movement of the SSB is important, its more about the forces exerted on the Sun, especially at the tachocline. My feeling is there is a difference in the sheer layer during the 10 year disordered orbit, which is currently being measured by doppler measurements that show the solar rotation rate slowing (torsional oscillation). If you want an example of physical change this is a good place to start. I can feel a tallbloke moment coming on. You told me i was losing the plot and now you say it is no big deal.
|
|
|
Post by gsharp on Jun 13, 2015 7:13:40 GMT
Playing the man again?
You need to be a little careful, you made no reference to my "losing the plot" comment. Dont take it personally, but as advice. Look at the science, forget about Svalgaard etc and see if you can find fault in the data.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 13, 2015 7:33:22 GMT
Playing the man again? You need to be a little careful, you made no reference to my "losing the plot" comment. You are playing the man. You played the man when you made the losing the plot comment and now you are doing it again. What i expected from you was some comment that you would change your text and you were sorry.
|
|
|
Post by gsharp on Jun 13, 2015 7:43:28 GMT
You have been advised to follow the data, looking for physics based reasons why the theory cannot work is following another plot. Try to keep on track or communication will be pointless. If you took offense from my comment I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 13, 2015 8:14:21 GMT
You have been advised to follow the data, looking for physics based reasons why the theory cannot work is following another plot. Try to keep on track or communication will be pointless. If you took offense from my comment I apologize. Geoff If you want to apologise to somebody you do not begin a statement with 'you have been advised' Even in Australia where toxicity amongst people has become a refined art form or hobby, an apology does not begin with 'you have been advised'
|
|
|
Post by gsharp on Jun 13, 2015 8:29:35 GMT
Other people have also given you this advice, the conversation is losing merit. Your point of view is that planetary theory is busted via a paper and Anthony Watts comments. I have provided two papers that challenge your views and Watts and the paper mentioned by yourself.
You can ignore the papers and go around in circles with side issues, or take on the peer reviewed papers and show where they are wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 13, 2015 8:35:26 GMT
Other people have also given you this advice, the conversation is losing merit. Your point of view is that planetary theory is busted via a paper and Anthony Watts comments. I have provided two papers that challenge your views and Watts and the paper mentioned by yourself. You can ignore the papers and go around in circles with side issues, or take on the peer reviewed papers and show where they are wrong? I started to read your website and then asked you some questions and you told me i was losing the plot and also something to do with 'my physics' Later you said i should be focusing on the physics Now you want to tell me to forget about my questions, follow the advise of others and read something else?
|
|
|
Post by gsharp on Jun 13, 2015 9:19:32 GMT
You are not posing any questions towards the papers offered: www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=36513referencelink.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-014-0510-1 Just read the papers and comment perhaps, as this is becoming a waste of time. If not we can only assume this thread is pointless. If you want a full copy of the McCracken paper I can probably pass it on if you agree to not distribute.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 13, 2015 9:33:57 GMT
You are not posing any questions towards the papers offered: www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=36513referencelink.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-014-0510-1 Just read the papers and comment perhaps, as this is becoming a waste of time. If not we can only assume this thread is pointless. If you want a full copy of the McCracken paper I can probably pass it on if you agree to not distribute. Perhaps we can clarify the barycenter topic first please. I was just reading that August 2008 discussion where carsten and Leif are talking that you just quoted from. Best to do that over on the other thread.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 14, 2015 4:09:32 GMT
You are not posing any questions towards the papers offered: www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=36513referencelink.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-014-0510-1 Just read the papers and comment perhaps, as this is becoming a waste of time. If not we can only assume this thread is pointless. If you want a full copy of the McCracken paper I can probably pass it on if you agree to not distribute. Perhaps we can clarify the barycenter topic first please. I was just reading that August 2008 discussion where carsten and Leif are talking that you just quoted from. Best to do that over on the other thread. ??I told you I was getting lost and now you are lost! This is the "No evidence of planetary influence on Solar activity." topic Andrew. The Barycenter talk you are referring to is one, I don't know which one' of the many barycenter threads you started. This one talks about planetary influence on solar activity Andrew: Try reading the abstract. ABSTRACT Detailed solar Angular Momentum (AM) graphs produced from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) DE405 ephemeris display cyclic perturbations that show a very strong correlation with prior solar activity slowdowns. These same AM perturbations also occur simultaneously with known solar path changes about the Solar System Barycentre (SSB). The AM perturbations can be measured and quantified allowing analysis of past solar cycle modulations along with the 11,500 year solar proxy records (14C & 10Be). The detailed AM information also displays a recurring wave of modulation that aligns very closely with the observed sunspot record since 1650. The AM perturbation and modulation is a direct product of the outer gas giants (Uranus & Neptune). This information gives the opportunity to predict future grand minima along with normal solar cycle strength with some confidence. A proposed mechanical link between solar activity and planetary influence via a discrepancy found in solar/planet AM along with current AM perturbations indicate solar cycle 24 & 25 will be heavily reduced in sunspot activity resembling a similar pattern to solar cycles 5 & 6 during the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830).
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 14, 2015 6:55:04 GMT
Perhaps we can clarify the barycenter topic first please. I was just reading that August 2008 discussion where carsten and Leif are talking that you just quoted from. Best to do that over on the other thread. ??I told you I was getting lost and now you are lost! This is the "No evidence of planetary influence on Solar activity." topic Andrew. The Barycenter talk you are referring to is one, I don't know which one' of the many barycenter threads you started. This one talks about planetary influence on solar activity Andrew: Try reading the abstract. ABSTRACT Detailed solar Angular Momentum (AM) graphs produced from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) DE405 ephemeris display cyclic perturbations that show a very strong correlation with prior solar activity slowdowns. These same AM perturbations also occur simultaneously with known solar path changes about the Solar System Barycentre (SSB). The AM perturbations can be measured and quantified allowing analysis of past solar cycle modulations along with the 11,500 year solar proxy records (14C & 10Be). The detailed AM information also displays a recurring wave of modulation that aligns very closely with the observed sunspot record since 1650. The AM perturbation and modulation is a direct product of the outer gas giants (Uranus & Neptune). This information gives the opportunity to predict future grand minima along with normal solar cycle strength with some confidence. A proposed mechanical link between solar activity and planetary influence via a discrepancy found in solar/planet AM along with current AM perturbations indicate solar cycle 24 & 25 will be heavily reduced in sunspot activity resembling a similar pattern to solar cycles 5 & 6 during the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830).I created this thread only because you were continually dishonestly derailing the conversation about leif, barycenters and Nautonniers confusion by claiming the text I have included in this thread was a conversation about climate which you said Leif was dishonestly derailing. You have also said I am a known liar when i have not lied about anything at all. Thomson was totally muddled up on barycenters, and you said you agreed with him. For some reason you find it impossible to concede you are wrong at the rate required to have an honest conversation. Most of the things we end up talking about are pretty simple and yet you always manage to turn it into a great song and dance where nothing at all is achieved.And where is Nautonnier in all of this? Why have you spent two weeks obfuscating your way thru post after post to defend him??
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jun 14, 2015 13:04:34 GMT
I'll say one thing for this thread: I have learned how to spell "barycenter" and "obfuscate". Still looking up the meaning of "falsify" though .....
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 14, 2015 13:22:20 GMT
I'll say one thing for this thread: I have learned how to spell "barycenter" and "obfuscate". Still looking up the meaning of "falsify" though ..... I think the first time I had ever heard of the word obfuscation was when Icefisher accused Steve of obfuscating. Steve of course was just patiently trying to explain something fairly simple to Icefisher.
|
|