Bart Leplae: Possible explanation of solar spin-orbit coupling

Posted: May 4, 2011 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

Ian Wilson has written to me with a link to this pdf by Bart Leplae. It expounds a possible explanation for apparent solar spin-orbit coupling caused by the planets and an interplanetary medium rotating with them. I think this is worth a ponder and discussion.

Comments
  1. Adolfo Giurfa says:
    May 4, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    This is like saying: “Electricity and Magnetism are caused by the displacement of pebbles”
    The same old fashion mecanicistic view of the universe. How did it all that movement start, without charges?

  2. P.G. Sharrow says:
    May 5, 2011 at 12:22 am

    Welcome back Roger.

    This BBC article may have some bearing on the science of the above paper. pg

  3. Tim Channon says:
    May 5, 2011 at 1:45 am

    Doubt this is enough.

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/gravity-probe-b/

  4. vukcevic says:
    May 5, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    Hi Rog. Nice to hear from you.
    I have strong reservation on the Wilson’s hypothesis for the solar magnetic induction (page 18 of pdf file). Neither sunspot or the polar fields magnetic polarity change from one cycle to the next, is consistent with the J-S relative positions,

  5. Ian Wilson says:
    May 6, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    Vukcevic,

    It is not my hypothesis it is Leplae’s. I am simply asking if his ideas can act as a kernel for a possible explanation of the solar activity cycle. Could you elaborate on your objections to his ideas.

    If you read my paper stored on this site you will see that my hypothesis is based on the idea that the gravitational pull of Jupiter acts at right angles upon the tidal bulge produced the periodic alignment of the Earth and Venus. This is a hypothesis and not much else but it does produce to distinct 11.1 year cycles that are 180 degrees out of phase with each other, producing an overall 22 year cycle. In addition, the two 11.1 year cycles are in phase with the peaks in sunspot number.

  6. Bart Leplae says:
    May 8, 2011 at 8:54 am

    As the author of the document, I realise that proposing a “rotating interplanetary medium” looks like going back to ‘old physics’. I would not have proposed this model without the evidence provided through Stellar Aberration. My paper http://www.wbabin.net/files/4335_leplae2.pdf describes a paradox included in the theory of James Bradley. Whie the theory allows us to calculate the exact displacement of the apparant postiion of the stars, it doesn’t explain why we can see stars that are actually behind the Moon (knowing that the Moon is not subject to Stellar Aberration). I am certainly interested in an alternative model that would explain this paradox without a medium.

  7. tallbloke says:
    May 8, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Hi Ian and Bart, and welcome to the talkshop.
    I think there is an entrained interplanetary medium – composed largely of hydrogen molecules. According to the late Paul Marmet, hydrogen molecules are invisible to our detectors, but are many times more abundant than singleton hydrogen atoms.
    Take a read, his credentials are impressive:
    http://newtonphysics.on.ca/

    Bart, I’ll take a look at your linked paper and comment again later.

  8. vukcevic says:
    May 9, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    Hi Ian
    My apologies for wrong attribution.

  9. Bart Leplae says:
    May 20, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    I published a new paper, “Solar Cycle induced through Coriolis Effect”

    Click to access 4451_leplae5.pdf

    It now includes an annotated graph showing a correlation between distance “Sun and Center of Solar System” and the Solar Cycle.

  10. tallbloke says:
    May 21, 2011 at 10:07 am

    Thanks Bart, that’s another interesting paper. Much food for thought.

  11. Bart Leplae says:
    May 21, 2011 at 11:38 am

    Warning: in my paper I refer to the X and Y positions of the Sun.
    I just received feedback that this doesn’t look to match with the real values.
    I presume I used the Vx and Vy values instead (velocity of the Sun)
    This would mean that Solar magnetism is induced upon acceleration/deceleration.
    More to follow …

  12. tallbloke says:
    May 21, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    Bart, that would be more in line with Ed Fix’s thinking too. And it makes some sense in terms of your ideas. A magnet whose rate of motion is reversed more quickly in an electric field causes bigger, briefer ‘spikes’ in energy.

  13. Bart Leplae says:
    May 22, 2011 at 10:46 am

    My paper has been updated: http://www.wbabin.net/files/4451_leplae5.pdf
    Apparantly, I made a mistake that did lead me to this interesting correlation between the variations of the velocity of the Sun and the Solar Cycle.

  14. Bart Leplae says:
    May 23, 2011 at 5:50 pm

    Page 8 of my paper makes a reference to what happened in 1793 and can be put in relation to:

    A SOLAR CYCLE LOST IN 1793–1800: EARLY SUNSPOT OBSERVATIONS RESOLVE THE OLD MYSTERY:

    Click to access apjl_700_2_154.pdf

  15. tallbloke says:
    May 23, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    Hi Bart, yes, I noticed that. There have been a couple of other points in recent history where the solar inertial motion has ‘gone retrograde’ too. I work more on the z axis data than x-y but wasn’t there one around the nineteen fifties?

  16. Bart Leplae says:
    May 23, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    Looking at the chart op page 9:
    Low Sun Speed: 1951 and 1971
    High Sun Speed: 1961