Understanding the Solar System as a true System

Posted: July 15, 2010 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

This is the most fundamentally important post I’ve made on this blog. It will underpin my version of the theory of planetary effects on the sun.

I first posited that the Solar system was a true system on Jeff Id’s blog last year. Richard and Vuk have obviously been putting thought into this stuff too. Now our ideas are coalescing into an exciting new vision of the way our Solar System works both in detail, and in the larger holistic view .
Here’s what I said at that time:
Tallbloke said
August 17, 2009 at 5:16 am

Tentative hypothesis:

The level of the suns activity affects the surface temperatures of the planets, which affects their rotation rate, which affects the vertical component of their angular momentum, which affects their obliquity, which feeds back to their insolation and the effect it has on their surface temperature, which further affects their rotation rate, which affects their orbital velocity through the law of conservation of momentum, which further affects affects the vertical component of their angular momentum, which affects the angle of their orbit relative to the solar equatorial plane, and the longitude of perihelion relative to the axis of the suns tilt, which then affects solar activity levels, which then affects the surface temperature of the planets…. and so we go round back to the beginning.

If such a feedback loop exists, this would imply that the sun’s activity level is intimately linked to small changes in the orbital elements and surface temperatures of the planets, and that the planets thereby help maintain the stability of the sun’s output.

I believe looking at the solar system this way will help move the discussion beyond simple cause and effect proceeding from the sun outwards, and help us see its variations as one of the elements of a cybernetic feedback control loop.


Below are a few comments extracted from a long and at times obscure recent thread on WUWT in which we discussed the nature of the relationship between the planets and the sun:

Leif Svalgaard says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:18 am
You shouldn’t take Vuk’s nonsense seriously. [you have your own to tend to 🙂 ].

It must be like herding cats from your point of view Leif. 😉

However, I got another insight today which changes the game. I’ll be posting about it on my blog soon. It goes back to my mention that Newton and Einstein had planetary motion as a given. Now, Leif, if this solar wind of yours is strong enough to blow away anything trying to head upstream, how much drag does it create on planets moving at right angles to it? Over 4 billion years?

Tallbloke (a.2)
Magnetospheric reconnection is kind of ‘short circuit’ releasing huge amount of energy, still not completely understood (I look at it as electric currents short circuit).
J & S each have permanent polar aurora, meaning that they are constant load on the solar magnetic circuit.

It means more than that Vuk, as I just realised. Follow the Right Hand rule and consider the back EMF

And they are big planets with low densities.


Vuk etc. says:

  • Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune , all emit energy as infrared radiation, more than they receive from the sun . It is thought that the energy is due to compression of the planets by high gravity, but scientists are not certain. Not convinced by the gravity theory.
    I wonder what happens to the energy generated by the magnetic short circuiting, called ‘reconnection’, which btw is heat; that would contradict the experts.

  • The total external magnetic fields of the sun extend to the boundaries of the heliopause, closer in than this ~2 light years, the effects of the constant coupling of the slow rate near DC magnetic fields, maintains the angular momentum, measured both by orbital velocity, and LOD for each of the planets. The total power invested in these fields are a result of the total mass of the magnetically susceptible material in each body, balanced back to the sun’s ratio of internal to external fields.

    At synod conjunctions the resistance to electromagnetic conduction of external fields from the sun decreases and coronal holes open to send out lines of magnetic force to maintain the balance. The homopolar generator effects regulate the sum total of the solar systems angular momentum, by accommodating the shifts in magnetic current flux with the short term variances in LOD and / or angular momentum in orbital velocity.

    At 8 light minutes out from the sun the Earth is quite susceptible to these shifts in magnetic fields strength that is continuous, nearly instantaneous, and on going in cyclic patterns that can and have been measured. The composite of the variable component is small compared to the continuous near DC that regulated and is regulated by the back ground Constancy of the composite orbital velocities, and the angular momentum of the whole solar system, sun included.

    What we see as the flux variations is but the noise on top of the elevated voltage of a very clean power supply, run on homopolar generator effects that have come to a harmonic synchronization over the past 4+ billion years, because this back ground level of connection is near DC and steady it is not measurable, as other than the background magnetic flux, seeking a balance with the background fields of the galaxy.

    To see the solar cycle as anything other than the turbulence felt by the solar internal fields to these flexes in the external fields, is not going to very productive. To see the driving effects on the earth’s climate as anything less than the sum of these influences on the energy budget, and ion flux in the atmosphere, transferred through the lunar declinational tidal effects, to the global circulation patterns that result, as a compounding of these cyclic forces, is the way out of the current lack of understanding on how the weather works and turns into climate with time.

    Yes, this is the thought that struck me yesterday. The heliosphere’s rotating interplanetary magnetic field helps maintain and regulate the planetary motion, and this is the reason why we see all the interesting almost whole small number relationships between planetary orbital periods and rotations that link to simple series like the fibonacci series. Then the planets, being in harmonic resonant relationships with each other and the Sun, participate in feedback loops which affect levels of solar activity, which in turn affect the strength of the assistance the IMF gives to maintaining the planetary orbits.

    In this way we can see that the solar system truly is a system, with internal negative feedbacks which regulate the output of the Sun at a steady level. Because all such systems, both natural and manmade, oscillate about a mean, this is why the Sun’s visible sunspot cycles sometimes ‘run ahead’ of the planetary alignments, and sometimes lag behind.

    tallbloke says:
    July 14, 2010 at 11:22 am
    if this solar wind of yours is strong enough to blow away anything trying to head upstream, how much drag does it create on planets moving at right angles to it? Over 4 billion years?

    There is no significant drag. Quite the contrary: the solar wind’s magnetic field is transferring angular momentum from the sun to the planets, moving them to larger orbits, slowing down the Sun in the process. Today this effect is extremely slow and has effectively stopped, but when the sun was young and the solar wind was thousands of time stronger this was a very efficient process.

    I carefully used the word drag to create ambiguity. 😉
    Th rotation of the sun is faster than any of the planetary orbits. Therefore the solar wind sweeping past the planets effectively ‘drags’ them round with it, helping to maintain their orbits against the ‘drag’ of the effects that are trying to slow them down.

    I agree that the strong part of the effect moving the planets to higher orbits has slowed down and effectively stopped, but I contend that this is a dynamic equilibrium, a balance against the forces tending to drag the planets to lower orbits (spin orbit couplings, mutual perturbances etc that end up as heat in planetary cores),

    I disagree that the forces no longer operate, are not significant, and most of all I disagree that they are unimportant.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 15, 2010 at 8:20 am

    the solar wind transfers angular momentum from the Sun to the planets via the magnetic field, thus causing the planets to recede from the Sun. This effect is at present negligible [but was not in the distant past].

    It appears to be negligible, because the planetary orbits are not getting higher as they were in the past. However, this does not mean that the force is negligible now, rather that the force pushing the planets outwards is in a dynamic equilibrium with the forces tending to take the planets inwards.

    If you look carefully at JPL’s Horizon site, you will see that these forces are not included [too small].

    The net motions are too small for JPL to bother including them, but this does not mean the forces are not there, just that they are in a dynamic equilibrium with opposing forces.

    Everything in the universe oscillates. Why should our corner of the cosmos be any different? You would need some special pleading to claim that. The Sun has 99.87% of the solar system’s mass, the planets have 98% of the solar system’s angular momentum. If the sun was giving up a fraction of it’s energy to opposing the tendency for the orbits of the planets to decay (as they must, see the law of entropy), then the effect on it’s overall spin rate would be infinitesimal, and unmeasurable by JPL or anyone else over a short (space age) timeframe.

    In any case, if the Sun gives energy via magnetic fields to the planets, it seems likely the galactic core is giving some energy to the Sun via magnetic fields too. Once again, you would need to make a special pleading to argue that the Sun isn’t affected by the same forces that affect everything else in the universe.

    1. tallbloke says:

      So now I need to devise experiments which will hopefully confirm my hypotheses.


      Idea 1) Work out how much the planetary orbits would decay without the effect of the interplanetary field dragging them round the sun. Bloody difficult

      Idea 2) Compare accurate observations of planetary positions form old records to compare with where JPL calculates they would have bn at that time. Build up a series, see if there is any systematic variation which would confirm the oscillation of planetary orbits consistent with the alternate advance and lag of the planetary alignments of Venus Earth and Jupiter compared to the sunspot record. Feasible but maybe inconclusive.

      Any more?

    2. I would start with the variations in the strength of the solar wind and coronal hole manifestation as a feature of synod conjunction timing with regards to whether lag / phase shifting occurs or not, and if so how much. In AC motors there is a phase shift between the rotor and the rotating fields of the stator, that reflects the amount of load, [drag] increasing the resultant torque required (by current increase to maintain speed) as the rotor lags the field rotation, the phase shift lagging itself generates the resultant increased torque transfer to the load.

      The design is close coupled, and magnetically contained, and externally powered.
      Questions to ask oneself;
      Is the sun / solar system magnetically contained or just limited by the heliopause?
      What percent of the total driving power is internal or external to the heliopause?
      Are all of the components of the solar system in free fall about the center of mass of the system, or the COM of the magnetically permeable content only?
      Or is there a weighting between the two?
      In the motor the speed is driven by the construction (number of slots with internal windings, on the rotor in ratio to the stator fields X the cycles of the AC) with the sun are the periods of the planetary orbits regulating and regulated by interactions with the galactic fields and any periodic / cyclic modulation of them?

      Now that the solar system seems stable, is the drive / drag in balance or just in a local calm spot for now, that is on the main sequence stage of it’s growth, and until disrupted by outside magnetic field disturbances or massive contributions of in falling additional mass.

      Once planet forming became stable, the elements found in the basic constituents of the planets were separated by radiation pressures of the solar wind, fractionally distilling the lighter, and more easily ionized elements / compounds to the realms of the outer gas giants and further out, leaving the free electrons to end up suspended on the outside of the Oort clouds as a Negative charge on the skin of the heliopause.

      I think that will explain the makeup of all of the outer planets, however the compensation of their moons seem to be clumps of condensed matter with radically different makeups, and may have been just captured whole by the outer planets, some as interlopers created and delivered from out side this solar system, or slung out in early stages and reintroduced late in planet forming.

      To cut to the quick it was the ongoing cleanup of the small particulate matter in the solar system, along with the actual particles pushed from the sun in the solar wind that resulted in the production of the late and still ongoing stages of planet production, leaving them with their resultant size and composition.

      Was this a process of balancing the rotor / stator mass loading that resulted in the current relative stability?
      It would stand to reason that the range of radiative pressures of stars as they grow would affect the planetary make up of their systems.
      By this reasoning how stable has the solar wind been in the long past could be measured by the distillation products and their purity / contamination ratio, forming the outer gas planets.

      Round about way of saying the solar system has made itself the way it is due to dynamic laws, that have become stable by their own regulation perhaps.

      So the harmonics found in the masses and density distribution is not by chance, and needs to be considered in the solution to the total problem of magnetic flux distribution via the angular momentum of the resultant current system. If you are going to solve for the coefficient of drag / drive of the current solar wind fields, which I assume will shift as the system evolves more in the future, to accommodate those (billion year / period) changes.

      Strike any part of this that is too off the wall.

      I just think that ongoing processes are being modified by interactions with the rest of the Galaxy, are the responses felt on the Earth generate the long term ice age cycles, identifying them as they show up would be helpful for ice age time scale forecasting. Planetary cycles of interactions would be more help full in the shorter term, and Lunar cycles in the near future forecasting ( 10 to 20 years as Ulric Lyons suggests is possible).

    3. I somehow dropped a portion of my second paragraph, remarking that as the load increases the inductive increase produces heat in the rotor an stator fields, due to resistance and increased power requirement. In the planetary bodies the LOD shifts of the pulses in rotational momentum at synod conjunctions would generate frictional heat as well as inductive heating, driving the production of volcanoes and quakes as a result.

      In line with the later part of my ramblings there was a period of super plume activity in the outer core mantel boundary about the time of the break up of Pangaea, that may have been due to an inductive pulse of heating from the magnetic surges from a fairly local super nova, that precedes a secondary surge in number of meteor impacts on the moon and most of the planets.

      In the same vain how do you see the current (in geological time) rapid northward movement of the Australian Plate, affecting the weather climate changes, as it heads for Japan the way India formed the Himalayas?

    4. tallbloke says:

      Plenty to think about there Richard, thanks a lot. One thing which occurred to me in the light of Leif’s comment about higher speed solar wind ‘straightening out’ the curve left in the IMF as the sun rotates was that if the field lines connecting planetary magnetospheres during alignments are affected by that curvature, then a phase shift in the alignment times would occur too. I think it might be worth plotting the alignment graphs with a model which shifts the planetary positions in line with the changes in solar wind velocity to see if some of the lag-lead variation between alignments and solar activity then goes away.

    5. tallbloke says:

      Richard, your thinking is in tune with mine. There could be an input of energy from outside the heliopause which ‘tops up’ the sun’s spin. I predict it will be found that a greater proportion of those stars which go supernova will be those without planetary systems to help regulate their internal activity.

      As you may know, I found a very nice correlation between LOD and motion of the sun’s equatorial plane relative to the z axis. This is one of the spin orbit couplings Leif refuses to acknowledge.

      I’ll read your responses more thoroughly and respond again later, I’m at work here.

    6. Ulric Lyons says:

      I really don`t get it! we have such a good correlation between solar wind velocity and short term surface temperature change, and you guys want to relate the wind speed to LOD and orbital changes rather than directly to short term temperature change….

      Richard Holle says:
      July 15, 2010 at 10:26 am

      If very similar heliocentric configurations occurring at a similar time of year, 179yrs or 953yrs apart, produce very similar weather coditions, then clearly one can point out extreme seasonal anomalies many centuries ahead, and be well sure to win a wager on them too.

    7. tallbloke says:

      Both these things can be true. The solar wind speed can have direct real time effects on Earth weather as well as affecting alignment timings and their feedback to solar activity. This might explain your obs as well as the decadal lag between the solar activity and Earth temperature response noted by Archibald and the Norwegian guy on WUWT recently. There are several things of interest going on here, so in addition to your weather/temperature forecasts, we can also get an insight into the workings of the feedback mechanisms in the solar system which affect future solar activity. If we can get a handle on those, we can predict change from physics principles rather than relying on lookbacks and expecting a repeat of past patterns. That gains credibility for the theory.

      Your input is very valuable because we need to compare a hindcast done with a model of alignments and windspeed against your phenomenological historical data.

    8. An image worth of a thousand words: Stars connected through a Birkeland current:
      The beauty of simplicity:
      “…. Follow the Right Hand rule… “

    9. Ulric Lyons says:

      I would have thought perturbations to Earth`s orbit from other planets would be larger than done by changes in solar wind velocity. Either way, it does not matter as the changes are so small, much smaller than a +/- 1 day lattitude that I would give to a long range weather event forecast. The biggest thing that will affect alignment timings when using average orbital figures, is that the orbits are not circular, so that Mars may go behind the sun every 779.93564 days on average, but this figure varies up and down by weeks either way due to the elipse of the Mars orbit.

      There are two reasons for using look-backs. Firstly, in correlating heliocentric configurations to a temperature series, and establishing postional rules or laws, one needs to look back to as many as possible similar configurations for exceptions, or confirmation of a lack of exceptions. These periods found in hindcasting then become an invaluable tool to double check the outcome of any particular forecast of the solar signal.
      The other reason for using look-backs in forecasts, is that they enable event locations to be determined, and circulation patterns to evaluated, so one can determine WHERE a cyclone will occur, as well as when, I do not see any other way of doing this.

    10. Malaga View says:

      While developing your Tentative Hypothesis it may be worthwhile to consider the effects the Expanding Earth / Planets theory might have upon your control and feedback loops… the system could be far more dynamic in a geological timeframe than previously imagined…

    11. tallbloke says:

      “I would have thought perturbations to Earth`s orbit from other planets would be larger than done by changes in solar wind velocity.”

      Sure, I’m not proposing that the perturbation would directly affect Earth weather in real time. More that it affects the alignments via the curvature of the spirals of field lines linking the planets which feed back to solar activity levels. This would have more general and long term effects on the climatic background baseline ‘real time weather’ rides on top of.

    12. tallbloke says:

      “it may be worthwhile to consider the effects the Expanding Earth / Planets theory”

      Which one? Miles Mathis’?

    13. Ulric Lyons says:

      @tallbloke says:
      July 15, 2010 at 1:47 pm
      Sure, I’m not proposing that the perturbation would directly affect Earth weather in real time. More that it affects the alignments via the curvature of the spirals of field lines linking the planets which feed back to solar activity levels. This would have more general and long term effects on the climatic background baseline ‘real time weather’ rides on top of.
      This goes against everything that I observe about alignments.
      Climatic background baseline is a construct, a climatic norm is the average of weather, a climatic boundary is a shift in the weather patterns, it`s all weather, and all real time.

    14. It seems your model perfectly fits in the EU model. A gravitational only model, which I have called the “flintstones universe” it is no longer sustainable. So I will be waiting for the enlightened comments of those who can analyze it under this perspective.

    15. Ulric Lyons says:

      The key interactions of the planets with the Sun take place in lines and squares, you only need to account for the spiral in the solar wind for what then results from the Sun to the planets, the spiral itself is not important in the relationship between the planets and the Sun in the first place, as can be confirmed by repeated obsevation and forecast of weather events and temperature devations.

    16. johnnythelowery says:

      Well done. It looks pretty. Can you make predictions?

    17. Though this may seem perhaps a digression, we as observers have an instantaneous view of the cosmos, in this case of the Solar System, like in a “blink of an eye”, but if that “blink of an eye” would be, say, a thousand years or more, we could have a whole different view of it. Then, if we consider just Jupiter and the Sun, at the center, we could “see” a coil shaped jupiter and a brilliant “core” Sun. This will help for more analogies.

    18. tallbloke says:

      Adolfo, I don’t have a problem with E.U. folks coming over here to make informed comment relevant to the thread. I will not allow it to become a free for all for anyone who is one step beyond the flintstones universe though.

    19. Ulric Lyons says:
      July 15, 2010 at 1:32 pm

      reply; my only problem in regard to this opinion is I don’t yet have data that goes back that far, due to low speed internet connection. Easily solved asap when I get back to Phoenix and also have tech support and access to more software options.

      I see no problem with the method of using extensive look backs, and deriving algorithms to adjust the average by the differences in this cycle from past effects, except I am not yet in a position to be able to preview all of the data, you have been looking at nor do I at this time, have access to a programmer to help me set things in motion.

      In my investigations I have uncovered more new questions than answers, and I am most focused on making an animation movie of the GOES satellite global images showing the connections of the 27.32 day patterns of lunar declinational tides in the atmosphere, for my own illumination of the multiple effects of the common periods of ocean basin oscillation, and their driven time period relationships.

      We all are personally focused on separate parts of the whole picture puzzle, it is nice to see glimpses of the box cover from time to time to see what the finished picture looks like.

      johnnythelowery says:
      July 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm

      Well done. It looks pretty. Can you make predictions?

      Reply; At this time I have 6 years of daily USA forecast posted to the internet that is using look backs based solely on the lunar declination periods and no compensation for what Urlic sees from the solar perspective. the errors seen in the forecast presented reflects the solar cycle changes, and also the past data in older cycles that are a result of the outer planet synod conjuctions’ inputs where there is no outer planet conjunction this cycle.

      An active program that uses normals and algorithms to compensate for both these and solar cycle changes would greatly improve the quality of the daily time frame forecasts. Urlic has gone to the monthly averages to solve most of this problem, which is nice as he is more focused on longer time frames than I have been.

      Once I get more detailed longer term data, an active program and adjustment algorithms, I will be able to expand the time scale longer. I have demands on my time being a grandfather of two active kids I watch most days for the next month or so, before I will have high speed internet and better concentration abilities.

      Ulric we need to sit and talk over coffee and a roll, or a cold brew and look at charts and graphs sometime….

    20. Ulric Lyons says:

      I typically acheive a an accuracy of +/- 1 day on timing of temp` uplifts or downturns, pretty much the same as for weather events.
      I use monthly data for research where no daily data is availalble, such as with CET, for older stuff, it`s written records, eg:

    21. tallbloke says:
      July 15, 2010 at 8:04 am
      So now I need to devise experiments which will hopefully confirm my hypotheses.

      This is wonderful!, as anything that can not be proved in the lab doesn´t exist.
      You will have to build a mini solar system, a combination of Birkeland´s terrella.

      Click to access ajp-jp4199707C408.pdf

      BTW.:Two candidates for your Hall of Fame: Birkeland and Alfven.

    22. tallbloke says:

      I will get around to posts on both of them, I promise.