Some thoughts about the solar system barycentre

Posted: April 11, 2012 by tchannon in Astrophysics, Solar physics

Figure 1

There are Talkshop blog readers who have a considerable interest in the solar barycentre, a taboo subject in many places, possibly because of excessive claims and obsession, makes dreadful coffee too.

Personally I don’t know but the idea has merit as a possible mechanism for something, what we don’t know. It’s worth remembering gravity is not the only solar linkage to the outside, magnetic and electrical connections are present, moreover interaction with planets is to a degree selective because they vary in their magnetic field.

The sun itself is also spinning in strange ways. Does it have a singular core and if so is that spinning? Spin means gyroscopic effects.

I’d forgotten to look at the Z-axis so here is the remedy.

This was produced by Solex 11 using ephemeris 406, which is better for long term than the more recent fine tuned to recent parameters. (ephemeris are approximations anyway)

Output was from year 1400 at 10 day intervals, frequent enough to avoid Nyquist problems, through year 2100, about 27,000 datapoints.

Solex is set to centric -1 which then asks for the absolute ZYX of the point to use, 0,0,0 sets solar barycentre. (which it recognises and names)

A problem is whether there ought to be a reference plane rotation but to what, such as what is the sun rotation axis? Or perhaps the mean planetary plane. Any ideas?

Lot of information on co-ords and computation is here.

Specific post process calculation is under Spherical and Cartesian Coordinates, theta.

All the data and computation excluding filtering is provided in this spreadsheet portable XLS 97/2000/xp which might be useful for anyone wanting barycentre data for other purposes.

Comment on Figure 1

The angular range is about +-0.4 radians, greater than I expected and is somewhat irregular.

The effect of low pass filtering is in essence integrating the effect where the relatively rapid movements could be considered as pulse width modulation, it really depends on how the sun might react, fast or slow?

The obvious pattern is unsurprisingly on the known ~178 year period, which also does not repeat exactly.

A reference to Fairbridge in the SAO/NASA catalog seems fun here but a web search will unearth a mountain of items. Try this
178 year solar period

The effect of a gravitational asymmetry on a spinning sun is unknown but I have an interest in solar asymmetry (north/south difference) and can be seen in the sunspot area traces here

Figure 2

tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/are-solar-flecks-being-counted/

A connection? I have no idea but it is a rational possibility.

The two most recent pattern anomalies in figure 1 are ~1815 when the sun came out of deep slumber and 1991 during the peak of cycle 22.

Plan view of ~1810 event showing close approach of solar centre to barycentre.

Same for 1991 event.

Not shown is the distance, spin vector or velocity, there is a lot which needs detail examination.

Quite soon I expect to post something further, a curious detail which points to yet another factor to keep in mind.

So far as I know no-one has yet directly linked barycentre effects with actual solar activity.

Post by Tim Channon, co-moderator

1. Brian H says:

Geez, how many spins can there be at once? Don’t answer that …

2. Ninderthana says:

Tim Channon says:

“So far as I know no-one has yet directly linked barycentre effects with actual solar activity.”

If you are referring to an actual eruptive event then you are right. However, if you are referring to the general level of solar activity then you are wrong.

One dominant influence upon the Sun’s Barycentric motion is the periodic (19.858 years) alignments of the Jupiter and Saturn. Our paper in 2008:

http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/138/paper/AS06018.htm

shows that the timing of these alignments with respect to solar maximum can be used to predict the general level of solar activity on the Sun. The predictive method has worked since the earliest reliable solar sunspot data has been collected i.e. ~1698.

Of course there are many other authors who have ways of predicting the Sun’s general
level of solar activity based on the Sun’s Barycentric motion.

3. Geoff Sharp says:

The same mistakes that Landscheidt, Fairbridge and Jose made are being repeated here. There is solid research that answers these questions that seems to be ignored in this blog. Basically it is not about the zero crossing or retrograde orbit.

http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/173

The longer term Z axis graph has been long awaited, this version shows no correlation with solar output.

4. tallbloke says:

Tim Says:
Does it have a singular core and if so is that spinning?

Leif pointed me to a paper that seems to indicate that the helioseismology consensus is that there is a core which behaves as a solid below around 0.72r which rotates at around 24.5 days. I’m not sure if the rotation period is empirically observed though, it may just be a number which drops out of the dynamo theory du jour.

Study in this area may look obsessive to some. It’s a fascinating subject which demands a lot of research and concentration of effort to get your head round. There are no easy answers or dismissals, unless your mind is already closed to the possibilities and you already have a strong belief in an alternative proposition. After Steve McIntyre banned the subject on Climate Audit and Leif crossed over to WUWT, he gave a five point rebuttal in 2008 which I replied to:
===================================================
tallbloke says:

This is a much more detailed rebuttal of Landscheidt and his ‘barycentric nonsense’ than you gave me on CA, and so I am able to respond to your 5 points in more detail:

1) Landscheidt doesn’t base his theory on planetary tidal action. He proposes that the planets gravitationally induced movement of the sun around the barycentre of the solar system produce “not insubstantial” changes in angular velocity, and that these are translated to an up to 5% change in the velocity of the equatorial solar spin rate, and that this has been observed. Here are the maths and citations.
“The contribution of the orbital momentum to the total angular momentum
is not negligible. The maximum value reaches 25% of the Sun’s spin
momentum. In addition, there is strong variation. The orbital
angular momentum varies from 0.1 x 10^47 to 4.3 x 10^47 g cm2 s1 or
reversely, which is more than a forty-fold increase or decrease. If
there were transfer of angular momentum from the Sun’s orbit to the
spin on its axis, this could make a difference of more than 5% in
its equatorial rotational velocity (Blizard, 1982). Such
acceleration or deceleration has been actually observed
(Landscheidt, 1976). This seems to be indicative of a case of
spin-orbit coupling of the spinning Sun and the Sun revolving about
the center of mass involving transfer of angular momentum
(Landscheidt, 1986b, 1988). Coupling could result from the Sun’s
motion through its own ejected plasma. The low corona can act as a
brake on the Sun’s surface (Dicke, 1964).”:

2) Landscheidt uses a method involving the golden section as a general cosmological constant for his theory, possibly because it holds generally and is further projectable than chaotic planetary motion. This leads to imprecision, but improves general long range applicability. Nonetheless, the short range forecasting is still as good or better than anything I’ve seen from the other theories. Using his theory he successfully predicted:
” …the end of the Sahelian drought three years before the event, the last four extrema in global temperature anomalies, the maximum in the Palmer drought index for U.S.A. around 1999, extreme river Po discharges around the beginning of 2001, and the last three El Niños as well as the course of the last La Niña (Landscheidt, 1983-2002).

Perhaps you can offer examples of a better track record from other theories predictive capability?

3) On exoplanets: Please give us the details. Fascinating!However, this doesn’t falsify Landscheit’s theory, which rests on barycentric motion which could arise from causes other than jupiter sized planets.

4) See above for the primary mechanism. The reversing polarity may be accounted for in the approx 20year cycle of jupiter-saturn-heliocentric conjunction and opposition. It will be interesting to analyse the phase shifting effects on frequency of reverse polarity spots which buck the cycle.

5) Lets see how much [better] these other theories fare over the forthcoming months and decades. Landscheidt predicted in 1988 that:
“The extrapolation of the observed pattern points to sunspot maxima around 2000.6 and 2011.8. If a further connection with long-range variations in sunspot intensity proves reliable, four to five weak sunspot cycles (R < 80) are to be expected after cycle 23 with medium strength (R ~ 100).”

So far, he seems to be doing better with this 19 year old prediction than NASA’s Prof. Hathaway is with his prediction that is being continually adjusted even after cycle 24 has already shown it’s first spots! Didn’t half the panel you sit on predict an Rmax of over 150 for cycle 24?

Long live falsifiable content and scientists with the confidence to nail their reputations to the predictive capability of their theories as firmly as Theodor Landscheidt did.
#
tallbloke says:

Having read a bit more of the preceding comments, I can see that my response to your point number 4 above may sound a bit too “astrological” for some. It is worth noting that although Jupiter may only raise a 1/25″ tide on the sun, it’s gravitational effect is to move the sun up to two entire sun diameters over a period of 20 years or so, and that the combined gravitational effect of jupiter and saturn when they are close together and opposite each other either side of the sun substantially alters the path of the sun in terms of it’s motion about the centre of mass of the solar system.

These are real motions of extremely big objects actually happening in our solar system, not some arcane glyphs on a circular diagram being pored over by a tabloid sideshow columnist. It does a disservice to scientists involved in celestial mechanics to conflate these very different activities.

My apologies to Anthony Watts if he feels this and my preceding post are irrelevant or unwarranted.
=====================================================

Clearly Anthony Watts did, because he banned discussion of the topic too. It seems leif and Anthony are in denial of Landscheidt’s accurate, well documented and independently verified predictions. At this blog, we don’t ban theories which have proven predictive capability simply because we can’t yet satisfy a demand for a full explanation of the underlying physics. That’s just reactionary dogmatic bullshit and hypocrisy. All of Leif’s certainty about the ‘consensus model’ of solar activity is pure flannel. For one thing, there is no consensus. The Sun is a mystery open to all to try to solve.

5. Geoff Sharp says:

Landscheidt, Fairbridge and Jose all predicted a grand minimum for 1990. All 3 got it wrong because they were using the the zero crossing/retrograde orbit method and also got the timing wrong…there is no 178 year period.

They were pioneers but missed the vital point. The zero crossing happens in general roughly around the timing of the important barycentric action of angular momentum perturbation (AMP), but the zero crossing is far from accurate. This event (AMP) is what lines up with all solar slowdowns and is accurate not like the pioneers predictions.

AMP theory has been around since 2008 but this site is yet to discuss it….this is very poor for a so called planetary theory site.

6. tallbloke says:

Geoff:

Landscheidt, in his 1988 book Sun-Earth-Man noted that the solar surface between 0,9r and 1.1r would be skimming through the barycentre for a long period between 2004-2010. This led him to predict a SSN max of ~100 for cycle 23 and 4 to five weak cycles following of SSN max 70 or so. This is looking pretty good at the moment.

You never took me up on the offer of a guest post. Why not? If I had attempted to summarise your ideas, you would no doubt have been along to tell me I’d done it ‘very poorly’, and that’s why I asked you for an article. Are you here to advance knowledge, or just to make negative and unproductive comment?

7. Geoff Sharp says:

Rog, the same book you reference is where Landscheidt predicted 1990 as a grand minimum. It is time to seriously consider the logic is not correct.

[Reply] Please provide a quote from the book to substantiate this claim, which I believe to be incorrect

You offered me a guest post (late) after I mentioned my theory was not reviewed here even though you were aware of it for at least 2 years. You said there was no need to evaluate it here because I was so “out there” or something close and not needed to discuss here.

[Reply] Please provide a quote from this blog (or any other) to substantiate this claim, which I believe to be incorrect. As I pointed out in the thread where you took the hump and said you’d not be posting here again, I have referenced your work and provided links to your blog on many occasions here.

You also said my theory was just a rehashing of Charvàtovà. This shows that you really have no understanding of the theory.

[Reply] Please provide a quote from this blog (or any other) to substantiate this claim, which I believe to be incorrect. Here’s what I think you are referring to: I’ll leave it to others to decide whether I said “just a rehash” or whether I was fair to your claim that “Angular Momentum disturbance created by Uranus & Neptune is a new planetary theory”.

tallbloke says:
January 17, 2011 at 4:06 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
January 17, 2011 at 7:55 am
Angular Momentum disturbance created by Uranus & Neptune is a new planetary theory that explains the missing links observed in the pioneering planetary theory papers.
————-
“The ‘bottoms’ of prolonged minima probably reoccur with a 171 year spacing reflecting the synodic period of Uranus and Neptune…The results show that the solar variability could be caused by inertial motion of the Sun.”
-Ivanka Charvatova- 1992

For those interested, moment of inertia and angular momentum (AM) are two sides of the same coin. Although Miles Mathis has a thing or two to say about it as usual. :)

Where Geoff has extended this idea (and I hope he’ll rejoin us to explain further), is in looking at the phase of the solar cycle when the Uranus – Neptune conjunction occurs, which helps determine whether the conjunction will have a larger or smaller effect on solar activity in the following cycles. Be sure to visit his site for more info on that and the other observations he has made.

I have a paper linked in this thread that you are welcome to review in an article.

I am of the opinion very few on this planet have a complete understanding of the theory, but if you take the time to read the paper and review I am happy to answer any questions that arise. This is your chance to advance knowledge.

[Reply] People can download and read your paper from the link you’ve provided and form their own judgement. Given your propensity for misrepresenting what I have said, I’m not getting involved. Furthermore, I won’t publish further comments from you unless and until you’ve either substantiated your accusations or withdrawn them with an apology.

8. Wayne Job says:

Every element other than hydrogen is manufactured inside a sun, when the big ones go bang the heavy elements are spread around and captured by other suns, which are probably formed by the debris of the exploding suns in a hydrogen cloud, as has been seen of recent with the Hubble telescope. There fore a reasonable assumption would be that our sun has a core of heavy elements. That it was not born yesterday is reasonable to assume and the process of hydrogen converting to heavier elements is ongoing, so it would be a given that the sun is getting more heavy elements in its core as it gets older.

The consequences elude me but as long as the sun keeps shining its OK , at the moment it would appear that it is tired and needs a rest. This may have some bad news for us, especially in Australia as the English may invade us again to escape the cold. You and your family are welcome Tallbloke.

9. Joe Lalonde says:

TB,

The size difference from the equator to the poles in rotation also means velocity differences. This effects the speed of material such as solar flares coming off the sun depending on the location that it is at.

The sun gives all the characteristics of super compressed gases formed by heavy compression in rotation. Vibrating hot gases that can become more densely compressed.
This is similar to using pressure and vibration to compact sand in construction to have a solid base.

10. Bart Leplae says:

RADIOACTIVITY AND THE AGE OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM:
http://www.princeton.edu/~wbialek/intsci_web/dynamics1.3.pdf
All heavy elements have been created at the same moment in time … so most likely within our own Sun.

11. Ninderthana says:

Tallbloke,

I am sorry to see that you and Geoff are not getting along. You both have a lot to contribute towards a better understanding of this whole phenomenon.

Geoff is right in pointing out one important point. if you look at the angular momentum of the Sun in its obit about the barycentre over periods of thousands of years, you get a 171 year repetition period not the 178 year Jose cycle. It only has a quasi 178 year period over the last 300 years, leading Paul Jose highlight the 178 year period in his 1965 paper.

My understanding is that Geoff’s theory claims that Uranus and Neptune play an important role in producing periodic irregularities in the Sun’s total angular momentum about the
Barycentre [Geoff, please correct me if I am wrong]. These are the same irregularities that I discuss in my General Science Journal paper:

(see figure 9)

although, I match them up with the alignments of Saturn with Neptune (every 35.8 years)
and Saturn and Uranus (~ 45 years), which of course have a beat period equal to
the 171.3 year realignment time between Uranus and Neptune.

Where, I disagree with Geoff is his dismissal of the 178 year Jose cycle. It is a real
realignment cycle for the four outer Jovian planets. I believe that what Geoff is observing in his
angular momentum data is just the average of the Jose cycle and the orbital period of Neptune.

(164.79 + 178)/2 = 171.40 yrs

which is also very close to the synodic period of Uranus and Neptune = 171.38 years.

[In other words, the 178 year Jose cycle dominates the angular momentum repetition cycle half the time and the orbital period of Neptune dominates the other half of the time]

The dates upon which the alignments of Uranus and Neptune are re-synchronized with the alignments of Jupiter and Saturn are:

_________ = 7949 B.C.
5627 B.C = 7949 B.C. + 2323 yrs
3322 B.C. = 5627 B.C. + 2305 yrs
999 B.C. = 3322 B.C. + 2323 yrs
1306 A.D = 999 B.C. + 2305 yrs
3629 A.D. = 1306 A.D. + 2323 yrs
5933 A.D. = 3629 A.D. + 2304 yrs

As you can see there is a oscillation between a period of 2323 years and 2305 years, giving a full repetition period (where all the Jovian planets are line up on the same side of the Sun) of 4628 years.

Geoff also identifies the 4628 year realignment period = 27 x 171.41 = 4628 years
but it could also be____________________________ = 26 x 178 = 4628 years

So you can see that this point is open to debate.

I hope that you and Geoff are reconcile with each other since, when push comes to shove. you have so much in common scientifically.

12. tallbloke says:

Wayne J: Nice offer! We’d love to visit Australia for an extended tour.

Bart, they must have came from a supernova. ‘Mainstream theory’ puts that some distance away, but Manuel argues that the mass fractionation throughout the solar system shows that our Sun was formed around the remnants of the supernova. I don’t judge either hypothesis, but note that both have a place in our conjectures.

Ian: It’s regrettable, but there it is. I always take care to mention the pioneers and current theorists when I write articles on this subject. Geoff wants to claim the glory to himself and in the memory of the late Carl Smith, and takes umbrage when I mention the other pioneer’s work in relation to his claims. Ray Tomes had a stand up argument with Landscheidt at a conference about the Jose 179 year and the 171 year cycles years before Geoff came on the scene. Your own analysis is more thorough and informative, and much appreciated.

you have so much in common scientifically.

I still have the emails where Geoff comments that it was my ideas which set him out on trying to determine the variations in the Jupiter-Sun and Jupiter SSB differences. If he was more willing to give credit where it’s due and less inclined to paint me in a bad light by telling lies about what I’ve said, I’d be more inclined to put up with his arrogances.

13. tallbloke says:

Landscheidt didn’t predict a grand minimum for 1990 as Geoff Sharp incorrectly stated.

Here’s what Landscheidt said in his 1988 book p.48:

“The torque wave points to a minimum past 1990. The extrema in the secular wave of IOT (impulse of torque) can be taken to form a smoothed supersecular wave with a quasi period of 391 years. This long wave points to an imminent supersecular sunspot minimum about 203063

Footnote 63 cites Landscheidt (1983) p.302

All the way back on p.16 he has already told us:

“Major solar instability events occur when the centre of mass remains continually within the range 0.9-1.1 solar radii for 2.5 to 8.5 years.”

after 1968.4 – 1972.6 the following period in the table he gives is 2002.8 – 2011.

Sure enough there was a low cycle in the 70′s following the instability event, and sure enough there’s another one now.

To clearly separate his own hypothesis from that of earlier researchershe also says on p.43

“Paul D Jose made a thorough analysis of this special relation in 1965. Unfortunately, his predictions for the 11-year sunspot cycle No.21, based on his analysis, failed to be accurate.”

14. Ninderthana says:

Tallbloke,

I have put my arguments about the reality of the ~ 178-179 year Jose Cycle
at:

http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/178-year-jose-cycle-of-jovian-planets.html

15. tallbloke says:

Ian, more excellent analysis, thank you. I’ll collate that by reposting it here if you don’t mind.

The quarter turn every 4628 years is interesting. How precise is that? Is there an identifiable precession (pro or retrograde) to that?

16. Hans says:

tallbloke says: April 12, 2012 at 7:24 am

Rog,

I read all Leif´s comments at WUWT. Sometimes I get the impression that to become a professor you have to close your mind instead of open it up for information. Go on and keep up your open mind for controverisal topics.

17. tallbloke says:

Hans: As I said the other day, Solar physicists have a dreadful insecurity problem due to their problems with understanding the Sun. The gatekeepers overcompensate for their lack of ability to make useful predictions by attacking all heresy and heretics with the energy that arises from their pent up frustration.

It’s about time they accepted the fact that using the solar system as a proxy through which they can gain insight into the internal mysteries of the sun is a sensible and enlightening course of action.

Not holding my breath though.

18. Geoff Sharp says:

I will be writing an article that incorporates your mistakes and censorship for all to see.

[Reply] I think it would be more productive and less divisive if you wrote an article outlining your theory and submitted it here for constructive appraisal. You publish what you wish on your site and I’ll carry on working with people who are able to communicate productively with each other on mine.

In his book pub 1989 he states this period to start at 1990 peak at 2030(too late) and end at 2070 (it will end sooner),

[Reply] Landscheidt predicted four or five low cycles centred on 2030. Do the maths. What’s half of 44 or 55 subtracted and added to 2030 Geoff?
2003-2008 and 2052-2057. When did the Sun show a marked slowdown?

The pioneers didnt have the data we do today and they got a lot wrong, you need to recognise this and move on.

[Reply] You need to stop telling me what I need to do. The pioneers still have a strong contribution to make and I’ll refer to their work wherever I find it relevant to do so.

You obviously have a jealously problem that is now becoming obvious to your readers. Your ego and this jealously is getting in the way of science….you will be judged.

[Reply] You think I’m the one with the jealousy/ego problem, but I acknowledge the continued relevance of the pioneers and the work of contemporaries, including you, in the articles I write on the subject. You say the pioneers were wrong, and you rarely give a mention to any work contemporaries have done on your website. The offer I made a year ago for you to submit a guest post outlining your hypothesis still stands, but I won’t continue with this personalised and unproductive exchange.

19. Lawrence A P Wilson says:

Being a humble citizen scientist who has spent the past ten or so years of my retirement studying matters astrophysical as a means of keeping me off the streets, I am indebted to all of those who participate in this and other such blogs in so generously sharing their knowledge – most particularly to the professional scientists but also those who are so much more advanced than am I in understanding what our magnificent solar system is all about.

It is encouraging to the many like me who also seek greater understanding, that the professionals would be so generous with their time and knowledge, all in the pursuit of the science – I thank you all sincerely.

What I had not initially expected but have come to observe over the years is that one would concurrently advance one’s understanding that human nature is also universal – a bit like gravity I expect, perhaps even yet another property of gravity. It’s wonderful to see that scientists too are richly human in nature.

I do hope that all may let the little humanesque flares that periodically evolve quieten down, continue all to participate, and get on with the scientific sharing and debate; I really do think all of your contributions in science advance the quest perhaps more than is sometimes recognised or expressed, and even the occasional colorful flare adds to the momentum.

So ends the lesson

LAPW

20. vukcevic says:

It’s a numbers game, in this case 2 & 1:
2 grand minima
1 not so grand minimum
2 Jupiter’s sidereal periods
1 J/S synodic period
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC5.htm

21. Ulric Lyons says:

Ninderthana says:
April 12, 2012 at 11:52 am
“As you can see there is a oscillation between a period of 2323 years and 2305 years, giving a full repetition period (where all the Jovian planets are line up on the same side of the Sun) of 4628
years.”

It`s 2224yrs and 2403yrs, eg 3322BC, 1098BC, 919BC and 1306AD, the full cycle is nearer to 4627yrs not 4628.

tallbloke says:
April 12, 2012 at 7:57 pm
“The quarter turn every 4628 years is interesting. How precise is that? Is there an identifiable precession (pro or retrograde) to that?”

It is pretty good for Ju+Sa+Ur at 4627yrs and just a tad over a 90deg radial displacement at each step, but Neptune drifts forward with respect to the other three about 15-20deg over 4*4627yrs.

22. Ninderthana says:

Thanks Ulric, I let a year slip by at 4:00 in the morning!

23. Ninderthana says:

Tallbloke,

You are welcome to post if you think is squeezes over the interest threshold

24. Hans says:

tallbloke says: April 12, 2012 at 10:40 pm

“It’s about time they accepted the fact that using the solar system as a proxy through which they can gain insight into the internal mysteries of the sun is a sensible and enlightening course of action. ”

I consider the sunspot record as a language in need of translation. At this point, after being interested in solar phenomena since 1973, I am pretty certain that the spots on the sun represent energy transfer between planets and the sun. It is also for certain that energy is transferred back and fourth between planets. The end result will be a shrinking solar system as the planets is getting closer to the sun.

The strongest indication of this is the commensurabilites that exist between all types of planetary periods. The best direct examples is found between the satellites of Jupiter. The rotation rate of Venus is just remarkable. What force is producing its interlocking to earth?

Venus Earth Ratio (Venus/Earth)

Sidereal rotation period (hrs) -5832.5 23.9345 243.686
Length of day (hrs) 2802.0 24.0000 116.750
Obliquity to orbit (deg) 177.36 23.44 (0.113)

2 earth years = 730.513 days
3 Venusian days = 731.058 days

There are hundreds of commensurabilites to be found among planetary periods. One has been described by Ninderthana above. There is no chance that all these commensurabilites are produced by chance. They are for real and they are the result of energy flows between celestial bodies.

The rotation rate of earth (LOD) is modulated by a number factors. Our moon is affecting it in a very clear way. At the same time LOD variations are correlated with the angular momentum of earth´s jet winds (primarily on the northern hemisphere) on weekly to seasonal scales.

In short. It is energy and energy transfer that matters as always. It is just to figure out how and why.
My personal prediction is that gravity has to be better understood than what is today before any real break through can happen.

25. Bart Leplae says:

“Heavy elements must have came from a supernova. ‘Mainstream theory’ puts that some distance away, but Manuel argues that the mass fractionation throughout the solar system shows that our Sun was formed around the remnants of the supernova.”

If radioactive decay tells us that Isotopic compositions of stone meteorites and terrestrial rocks indicate a single moment of creation for the heavy elements, and that this origin was 4.55 × 10E9 yr in the past which exactly correlates with the formation of our Solar System: How can these “heavy elements” be the remnants of an older system?

26. Roger Clague says:

Hans talks of solar system commensurabilities. It has always amazed me that the sun and moon appear to be the exactly the same size to us here on Earth.

The consensus is that it is a coincidence. I find that unlikely. It suggests to me that gravity and electromagnetic radiation together control the solar system.

27. tallbloke says:

Hi Bart: Is it possible the destruction of the older system was the at the same time the birth of the new system? What if the old system was a singleton star with no planets, and that star went supernova and that explosion formed the proto-planetary disc, with much material getting re-accreted around the central gravitational mass? Additional heavy elements might then have been blown outwards into the planetary system when the star re-ignited, helping create the mass fractionation started by the initial explosion.

Could that help explain the amazing timing coincidences we find in the motion of the solar system masses, their spin rates, and their relative distances? Consider that the period of Earth’s orbit divided by Jupiters orbital period gives the average rotation rate of the Sun’s surface. Even Leif Svalgaard acknowledges that in the early solar system, there was a strong spin-orbit coupling between the Sun and the planets.

It’s all very speculative, but that’s the joy of cosmology, no-one knows for sure, and everyone can have a think about it and offer ideas.

28. tallbloke says:

Roger C, that is exactly what led Miles Mathis to develop his reappraisal of Newton’s theory of gravity. See the recent thread for links.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/miles-mathis-what-causes-the-earths-heat/
Also relevant to Bart Leplae’s interest in the formation of the solar system.

Be sure to take note of the health warnings.

29. tallbloke says:

Hans,
Thank you, another fact to add to my fibonacci formula for the inner solar system:

During the time it takes for Jupiter to complete 2/3 of an orbit,
Venus will go past Earth five times, as Earth makes eight orbits,
while Venus makes thirteen, and Mercury will pass Venus twenty one
times, as it completes thirty four orbits of the Sun.

2,3,5,8,13,21,34. These numbers are of course in a familiar series, the Fibonacci sequence.

2+3=5
3+5=8
5+8=13
8+13=21
13+21=34

Mercury also exhibits a 3/2 spin-orbit resonance with the Sun.

30. Malaga View says:

Hans says: April 13, 2012 at 5:30 am
In short. It is energy and energy transfer that matters as always. It is just to figure out how and why.
My personal prediction is that gravity has to be better understood than what is today before any real break through can happen.

The same can be said for light, magnetism and electricity…
So many loose ends have just been left swinging in the breeze.

My personal interest is very much focussed upon these BACK TO BASIC issues.
This is where it gets very interesting… for me at least…
And there are some wonderful ideas to look at:

The work of Dr. Gerald Pollack is providing some wonderful insights into how light and electricity interact:
Water, Energy, and Life: Fresh Views From the Water’s Edge

The work of Howard Johnson has provided some wonderful insights into magnetism:
The Secret World of Magnets
<http://freenrg.info/Misc/The_Secret_World_Of_Magnets.pdf

My key observations from the above research is that particles interact:
1) "Particles" form "Chains"
2) "Chains" support "Chain Reactions" – like lightening
3) "Chains" form boundaries
4) "Chains" conserve momentum in torus and vortex structures

The work of Frederick Tombe on the structure of "Chains" is a major set in the right direction:
The Double Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field
http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe.pdf

The work of Tom Van Flandern on instantaneous gravitational interactions is very revealing:
The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

The most amazing thing I was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous.

The key connecting phrase regarding gravity is: dynamical systems
This implies that gravity is a “dynamic system” of “chains” [like a torus or double vortex]…
So looking for “Gravitons” is a misdirection…
So looking for the “Aether” is a misdirection…

What we have are:

A) Some “Bodies” emmitting “Paricles” into “Space”
B) Some “Particles” in “Space” forming “Chains”
C) Some “Particles” in “Space” forming “Bodies”
D) Some “Particles” in “Space” impacting “Bodies”
E) Some “Chains” in “Space” connecting “Bodies”
F) Some “Chains” and “Bodies” forming “Dynamic Systems”

That is the View from Malaga :-)

31. Prior to a super nova of a star, the balance of the three main particles electrons, protons and neutrons had to of swung toward an increase of neutrons as the protons and electrons were being magnetically pulled out with the solar wind as the magnetic fields expanded into balance with the local galactic field balance. As the ratio of protons to neutrons shifted as more neutrons [more affected by gravity than magnetic flux] stayed behind when the balance between them went critical it super nova ed.

As matter re-condenses and forms new stars out of the remnants of one or more older super novae to form the next generation of stars, whether compounded from several large chunks of left over core, or lots of small pieces of heavy elemental dust, when it ignites and starts to sputter off the lighter material as the new solar wind, specks of denser material will be carried into the proto-disk that became the planets so by that splattering process all material became homogenized by the mass fractionalization in the ongoing churning of the flares, cme and normal solar wind pushing out a smooth blend of the elements representative of the neutron concentration of the spray from the sputtering start up of the expansion of the magnetic fields to couple into the larger galactic fields as the sun came back to life, this one with the planets we see. Now long after the harmonic interactions of the resonate flux of matter and magnetic fields have become stable again, the laws of basic physics still apply.

[can you say run on sentence? I can.]

Gravity attracts neutrons some times with protons and electrons attached as normal matter that comes into contact with the heliopause and due to the heavy elements in it, becomes condensational nuclei for whatever is freezing out in the Oort clouds, Cometary bodies fall into the inner solar system depositing the mix of matter into the inner solar wind and as it becomes ionized again it is driven out toward the heliopause again. At some distance from the sun the radiational cooling causes different elements to de-ionize and then at further distance and cooler temps condense out as atoms and through slow collisions combine to form molecules of simple compounds.

Later planetary formation gets this boost of fractional distillates of matter that concentrate in their available zones of bands between the inner point of their re-ionization, and the outer points where that compound condenses or freezes onto denser matter, or is sucked into one of the planets. I think this is how the outer gas planets formed the bulk of their atmospheres, of the elements they could gather. Earth got lots of water, and water solubles, calcium, phosphors, Venus got CO2 and sulfur, Mars got liquid and solid CO2 [as did the earth but life and the calcium, bound most of it up and freed oxygen.]

The outer planets got the colder liquids and gasses, I still don’t know if the moons of Jupiter and Saturn were all formed loose in the solar system and got trapped in orbit around the body instead of being incorporated into the planet itself, or were some of them formed outside of our system and caught when they became gravitationally trapped into the suns system.

[my mind ranges wide when it roams freely]

(Just noticed the shrinking text window problem occurs when I make something out side of the box active when highlighting it for a copy function or open and close a sideboard window, but I am able to click in text block, ctrl a, ctrl c, [move to clipboard the whole hidden context], then delete text block, then paste in original text from clipboard to resume editing)X5 times so far.

Why would you be surprised that the harmonic patterns of the electromagnetic and gravitational interactions that resulted, as the system slowly evolved, would show up in the end product?

32. tchannon says:

When I questioned whether a solar core rotates I knew there is evidence based in part on neutrino data. Solar Neutrino Variability and Its Implications for Solar Physics and Neutrino Physics

I do not understand the paper because it fails to state the fundamentals. It states modulation without stating of what by what but then throws in a different number for siderial.

@Vukcevic: Beautiful wave!: Do-Re-Mi-Fa-Sol-La-Si-, Do-Si-La-Sol-Fa-MI-Re-Do…..A sinus curve for power.
Miles Mathis also asks for the reason why the Sun´s rotation (27.28 days) days is “tuned” with the Moon´s sidereal Month of 27.32 days…

There are a lot of “surprises” ahead….

34. tallbloke says:

Good spot Tim!
Clearly the fact “that neutrino and irradiance measurements both show strong evidence for a high-Q, periodic signal with frequency 11.85 yr–1.” is of high interest to solar-planetary theorists.The relevant process being the perihelion-aphelion cycle of Jupiter.

The authors continue:

“Such a stable oscillation strongly suggests that this signal is due to rotation. The corresponding sidereal rotation frequency is 12.85 yr–1 (407 nHz). However, this frequency does not conform to the known rotation profiles of the convection zone and the radiative zone (Schou et al. 1998; Garcia et al. 2008), implying that this signal has its origin in rotation of the solar core.”

They are more into numerology than we are. At least we can observe the periods we look for relationships between, rather than inventing them to explain the observations.

35. Ulric Lyons says:

Ninderthana says:
April 13, 2012 at 4:28 am
“Thanks Ulric, I let a year slip by at 4:00 in the morning!”

Your 2323yr and 2305yr intervals are not right either. The best returns of all 4 Jovians after say 1306AD is 2224 and 2403yrs later (note 2403-2224=179). So the whole 4627yr cycle could be seen as comprising of 2224yrs, then 179yrs, then another 2224yrs.

36. Ninderthana says:

Ulric,

I have incorporated your correction into my post. Thanks for your help!

37. Agile Aspect says:

Homegeneus second order differential equation for the 2 body gravitational problem in the center of mass frame:

$\frac{d^2\vec{r}(t)}{dt^2} + \frac{\mu \vec{r}} {r} = 0$

Non-homegeneus second order differential equation for the N-body gravitational problem in the center of mass frame:

$\frac{d^2\vec{r}(t)}{dt^2} + \frac{\mu \vec{r}} {r} = F_{net}(t)$

where F_net is calculated from the gradient of the gravitional potential for the N body problem.

Unless you’re trying to solve the N body problem, you’re just pissing into the wind.

The gravitional potential splits into the 2 terms, namely, the one consisting of the the possible 2 body terms and one consisting of the perturbing potential.

The bottom line is the center of mass gives you an easy integral to evaluate since the number of equations you still need to integrate is 12*(N-1).

The Kepler formulation of the problem requires 9*(N-1) integrals.

But with you guys the center of mass is only thing you calculate – and then the only path you display on the center of mass is the Sun’s.

38. Ninderthana says:

Agile,

I have a PhD in Astrophysics. Trying to confuse people with technical mathematical terms is really pretentious, particularly when when what you have to say has very little to do with the problem at hand. If you want to impress people with your mathematical prowess then I suggest you go elsewhere.

39. tallbloke says:

Ninderthana says:
April 13, 2012 at 4:35 am

Tallbloke,
You are welcome to post if you think is squeezes over the interest threshold

Thanks. I’ll work it in with a review of Jose’s paper.

40. RACookPE1978 says:

I see the issue perhaps a little differently than many, but I’m in the “rotating-very-big-and-very-heavy-things-that-generate-many-millions-of-watts-at-very-high-speeds” kind of business, and so am a bit parochial about the subject. 8<)

I think we need to look at barycentrism NOT as a Lief does (seeing the planets by calculating the effect of a small number of idealized pinpoint-sized, very small point masses trying to "move" a single, very heavy single solar mass) but rather, as a number of unbalanced weights orbiting a very heavy tumbling, roiling, turbulent loose fluid of plasmas and loops of light gasses pulled together by gravity but simultaneously repulsed by competing nearby upwelling loops of electrically charges plasmas.

Thus, you DON'T have to "move" the sun in its orbit to have a potential "astroillogical" effect on the sun. You ONLY have to affect/influence slightly the sun's turbulent loops of plasma and its upper currents of very light but highly ionized hydrogen atoms. The effect of a small but measureable periodic change on the sun's periodically reversing magnetic loops and swirls might be – key word and tricky phrase!!! – very important. Or it ma not be important.

For example, imagine a 50 ton generator rotor 2 meters in diameter, rotating at 3600 rpm carrying 12,000 amps of current at 41,000 volts. If you throw it off balance by adding a 10 gram weight glued to its surface 1 meter away from the centerline, you will not be able to feel the difference in vibration. (We can measure that difference of course, and do regularly adjust turbine and rotor weights by that little bit to bring them into balance, but you can't "feel" the difference with your hand on the running generator.)

But, if that same 10 gram weight were in a wire looped away from the rotor surface carrying a 1 amp current, you could easily affect the position of that wire, and or the magnetic and electrical fields generated in that wire by a very, very small current or very, very small magnetic field near the spinning wire loop.

So, put the little magnet just a bit radially outward from the swinging wire, and you'll pull the wire loop further from the rotor centerline. Reverse the magnet's filed, and you'll "push" the tip of the wire down towards the centerline – but only at that one point in the orbit of the loop. As it swings away from the magnet, centrifugal/centripetal force dominates and the wire loop "bounces back outward. You end up with an oscillating wire loop of varying radii as the loop overcompensates out, gets pushed in (near the magnet), gets thrown back out but goes too far, ….

Put the magnet radially ahead or behind the rotating wire loop. Again, you'll get an oscillating loop as it is pushed axially forward, is pulled back towards the middle by centripetal force but then goes past the middle neutral point, get pulled towards the magnet….

If your sensor were placed to measure the magnetic of the wire right near the tip of the wire, the
results would STRONGLY depend on where you were measuring the deflection of the wire, which would depend on the location and field strength of the magnet used to deflect the wire earlier and later in the revolution. You may not measure any change at all at some points.

So, the results of your experiment in changing a rotor with a 1 oz magnet would depend on whether you were measuring the position of a wire loop around the rotor, the rotor itself, or some combination of the wire loop, the rotor and its speed, and the position of the sensor.

Sunspots are only a symptom of the issue of varying magnetic fields in the sun: They are NOT the cause of varying electrical or magnetic fields, nor will we ever find them to cause effects here on earth. BUT .. having said that … I believe that whatever fundamental forces and events do cause and influence and affect sunspots and the sunspot cycles WILL have a measurable effect here on earth. So, if movement of the planets "moves" the center of rotation of the solar system far enough away from the center of mass of the sun that the center of rotation periodically moves above and below the surface of the sun, then that periodic movement of the rotating system WILL affect the very light and mutually repulsive roiling loops of plasma circulating through at that same surface of the sun

41. tallbloke says:

Robert, thanks, very insightful. I gave Lawrence a similar engineers eye view on the Landscheidt thread yesterday.

A couple of factoids relevant to your comment:

The Sun moves across an area the size of 4.3 solar radiuses, i.e. 0.02 AU or 3×10^6 km.

And as I noted above Landscheidt said:

Major solar instability events occur when the centre of mass remains continually within the range 0.9-1.1 solar radii for 2.5 to 8.5 years.”

after 1968.4 – 1972.6 the following period in the table he gives is 2002.8 – 2011.

Sure enough there was a low cycle in the 70′s following the instability event, and sure enough there’s another one now.

42. tchannon says:

RACookPE1978

The computations involving gravity do use point masses and this is not an issue as such since the maths all works but that isn’t the whole story.

One of the major open questions is whether the sun is gravitationally in free fall, which means it feels nothing.The formal view is it is but that is disputed by some. My mentioning solar spin is partly for this reason, if mass is spinning being forced out of the path is would otherwise choose will produce a kick.

The sun is involved with electromagnetics, also highly complex but not the subject of the article.

Gravity gives us law on where the bodies are and will be.

43. Brian H says:

CoG is most relevant to solids. With its multiple rotation rates and mysterious hyper-magnetic flows and outbursts throwing its mass hither and yon, I suspect that the CoG gravity simplification for the sun (or any plasma body) is seriously misleading.

44. Hans says:

Malaga View says: April 13, 2012 at 10:29 am