Barycenter (Barycentre) motion and solar cycles

[esarver]

I'm curious what other experts, such as Dr. L Svalgaard, think about some of the latest research into the effect of the sun's motion around the barycenter (center of the solar system) and the effects of that motion upon solar activity. If anyone cares to comment, or has anything to add, please do so....

These next links are to studies of the motion of the barycentre (center of gravity) of the solar system in relationship to the sun’s gravitational center.

1. The earlier research on barycentric motion was conducted in 1987 by Fairbridge and Shirley at Columbia University in New York:
www.springerlink.com/content/w57236105034h657/

2. A while back I found this research done in 1999 in the attached PDF from a Czech scientist named Charva tova who cites the research of Fairbridge. His research shows diagrams of the barycentric motion that look like little spirographs. (Spirographs: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirograph ) The diagrams were very compelling for me as part of his evidence.

3. In 2007, research was conducted by Wilson, Carter and Waite in Queensland, Australia:
www.publish.csiro.au/nid/138/paper/AS06018.htm

"Based on our claim that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun’s meridional flow is set by a Synodic resonance between the flow period (~22.3 yr), the overall 178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the 19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn."

Or, as the author of the report stated to a member of the press:

"It supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20 - 30 years. On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1 - 2 C."

[esarver]

Attached here...enjoy....

Attachments:

[williams]

According to this informations and analysis we can see that there is indeed a link between the movement of the Sun around the barycenter (180 years) and the evolution of the solar activity cycle to cycle.

See here and the next page (French) : la.climatologie.free.fr/soleil/soleil1.htm

Williams

[lgl]

esarver,

We had a long discussion on this in another thread that was unfortunately removed (planetary theory). The problem is that science refuse to accept that the Sun is not in absolute free fall. The solar activity is in sync with the orbital perturbations of the inner planets, mainly caused by Jupiter, so here is my suggestion: puzzlingthings.blogspot.com/

[Graeme]

Pardon my ignorance, but how is the Sun "not in absolute free fall"? The only way for something not to be in free fall is if it is resting against something (like we are 'resting' against the Earth's surface and hence don't keep falling into the middle of the Earth). I don't think anyone has postulated that the Sun is resting on something, it has to be in free fall.

Orbital motion is still free fall. It is just a special case where the sideways vector is sufficiently high that the two objects never actually meet.

My confusion probably lies with not understanding what is meant by 'absolute free fall'.

[lgl]

Graeme,

What difference does it make whether you have Jupiter accelerate Venus or you put a hugh rocket on Venus accelerating it? If it is accelerated by something else than the gravity from the Sun, the Sun has to counter that added motion, then it's meaningless to say it's in free fall.

[Graeme]

I'm hopeless confused, so please accept my apology if this sounds like a dumb question, but why does "the Sun has to counter that added motion"?

The Sun doesn't have to do anything, as far as I can see. All it has to do is exist with a specified mass, and the laws of gravity does everything needed automatically. As Jupiter and Venus alter their positions, the center of gravity of the combined Sun/Jupiter/Venus group will alter (with respect to the Sun) and the Sun (and other bodies) will continue to orbit around that center of gravity -- all automatically with no need for the Sun to do anything.

If I've understood it correctly, free fall is, essentially, just two (or more) bodies responding to gravitational forces without other forces being involved.

eg. In your example, if Jupiter accelerates Venus through its gravitational field, then Venus is still in free fall. Putting a hugh rocket on Venus and accelerating it would mean that Venus is no longer in freefall (as there is a force other than gravity acting on it), but Jupiter and the Sun would still be free fall, albeit with an altered trajectory due to the altered location of Venus, and hence an altered gravitational force.

I'm obviously missing something....

[lgl]

Yes but what's the difference seen from the Sun? A rocket will lift Venus to a 'higher' orbit just like Jupiter does, and when that happens Ve is moving a little away from the Sun-Ve barycenter and the Sun must do the same. It's true that Jupiter will slow down a little and lose height (and gain some height later) but Venus will reach it's highest point when Ju-Ve-Sun form a 90 deg angle (and it's lowest when Ve has 'passed' Ju and forms a 90 deg angle on the other side) so the motions of Ju and Ve do not counter each other.

[Bob k6tr]

This discussion is unrelated to Solar Physics or SolarCycle 24 and has been moved to the Open Forum.

[Graeme]

Dec 2, 2009 11:45:22 GMT lgl said:

Yes but what's the difference seen from the Sun? A rocket will lift Venus to a 'higher' orbit just like Jupiter does, and when that happens Ve is moving a little away from the Sun-Ve barycenter and the Sun must do the same. It's true that Jupiter will slow down a little and lose height (and gain some height later) but Venus will reach it's highest point when Ju-Ve-Sun form a 90 deg angle (and it's lowest when Ve has 'passed' Ju and forms a 90 deg angle on the other side) so the motions of Ju and Ve do not counter each other.

I understand, but the Sun still doesn't have to 'do anything' because this is basic orbital mechanics. It's like saying that the planets sometimes go backwards in their orbits because, when seen from the Earth, they do so.

The reality is that they don't (the apparent orbital regression is just an illusion based on the selected point of reference), and the reality is that the Sun is in free fall as it orbits the barycenter of the solar system.

The Sun only 'moves' away from the barycenter because the barycenter is a mathematical construct that equates to the center of gravity. To use an analogy, if you lift your arms above your head, your center of gravity moves upwards. That means your feet are now further away from your center of gravity (your barycenter) but they didn't have to do anything to do so. They certainly didn't 'move' away. It's just the calculated center of gravity has shifted due to the movement of your arms.

I still can't see why you said that:

The problem is that science refuse to accept that the Sun is not in absolute free fall.

The Sun is still in free fall, even as its orbit varies due to the changing gravitational effects of the other bodies in the solar system. That's what free fall means (at least as I understand it): a body reacting freely to gravitational forces.

[lgl]

"a body reacting freely to gravitational forces."

Change that to "a body reacting freely to gravitational forces acting on it" and you will see what I mean. In this case the Sun is forced to move as a result of gravitational interaction between two other bodies. And the Sun really moves, the barycenter is not just a mathematical construct. From outside the solar system it's the 'fixed point', the Sun 'wobbles'.
In 10 hours I will post a graph showing how Venus is jumping up and down during high solar activity.

[Graeme]

But the Sun is not forced to move, any more than you feet are forced to move when you lift your arms above your head (moving your feet further away from your center of gravity).

All that happens is that the bodies concerned continue to react freely to gravitational forces acting on them (I'll accept your correction as being more accurate than mine).

Yes, the barycenter can, from outside the solar system, be viewed as a fixed point, but it's still a mathematical construct. It is, essentially the center of gravity for the solar system. If one object in the solar system moves further away from the barycenter, the mathematical construct means that objects on the other side of the barycenter will also move further away from the barycenter (like your feet move further away from your center of gravity when you raise your hands above your head), but that's only from a mathematical point of view. Those objects don't have any additional forces applied to them (just like your feet aren't forced to move away when you raise your hands) -- it's only a new center of gravity that's being calculated.

Yes, the center of gravity (barycenter) is what the Sun and all the planets orbit, but it's still only gravity that's dictating what's happening. There's not other forces involved, so everything is still in freefall.

So I still don't understand your comment:

The problem is that science refuse to accept that the Sun is not in absolute free fall.

It is generally understood that the Sun is not stationary, but that's not what you're saying. What is it that you are saying that science refuses to accept?

[lgl]

If you were in orbit around the Earth and raised your hands (feet pointing towards the Earth) then your feet would move closer to the Earth because gravity is acting on the center of mass of your body, and your feet would 'feel' this motion. Same with the solar system orbiting the center of galaxy. By free fall I mean 'feel no force'. I know that's not how it is usually defined.

[Graeme]

Actually, 'feel no force' is quite accurate, as far as I can see. You only feel a force by resisting it (and that includes inertia), and so if you don't resist gravity, you don't feel it (that's what free fall is -- not resisting gravity, but allowing it to act on you without resistance). By the way, this is the difference between the earlier example of a rocket vs gravity. A rocket is an external force that has to overcome inertia to move something in front of it, while gravity applies to the entire object and isn't an 'external' force. That's not really clear or precise, so maybe someone else can explain it better. Essentially, while gravity is also a force on an object (like a rocket), because it is a force that applies to the whole object, that object does not 'feel' the acceleration (ie. free fall).

When you raise your hands, your feet would not feel any motion because there is no motion. The recalculation of the center of gravity doesn't exert a force, which is why I said it's a mathematical construct.

From the point of view of the center of gravity, yes, both the hands and the feet have moved away. From the point of view of the feet, the hands have moved away and the 'middle' point (to use a really loose term) between the hands and the feet has moved, but the feet themselves don't care what the hands are doing and there is no force applied to the feet for the feet to feel.

As far as the Sun is concerned, it is orbiting the barycenter. The barycenter itself, from the Sun's perspective, is moving because of the motion of the planets changes the calculated center of gravity of the solar system, but the only thing moving the Sun is gravity and because the Sun is not resisting, it's in free fall. There is no additional force being applied to the Sun and there is nothing for it to 'feel'.

What has been postulated (as I understand it) is that the tidal forces on the Sun from the movements of the planets may have an impact on solar activity (since the Sun is not a solid object, and hence different parts can respond differently to the varying tidal forces), but the Sun, as a whole, is still in free fall.

[lgl]

"When you raise your hands, your feet would not feel any motion because there is no motion. The recalculation of the center of gravity doesn't exert a force, which is why I said it's a mathematical construct."

Disagree. The radius of your orbit is the earth-your_center_of_mass distance, and that will not change just because you redistribute your mass, so your feet must move closer to earth when you raise your hands.