Feedback loops in the solar system

Posted: August 7, 2011 by tallbloke in Astronomy, Astrophysics, Solar physics, solar system dynamics

When the Sun was young the ‘solar wind’ was much stronger than it is now. So strong that it added large amounts of matter to the proto-planets orbiting it. The loss of such substantial amounts of material from the Sun reduced it’s angular momentum, and increased that of the planets. This created a ‘spin-orbit coupling’ between the Sun and its orbiting planets determining the eventual spin rate of the Sun and the mass and orbital distances of the planets. The strong solar wind pushed the planets out to the distances where the attraction of gravity overcame the strength of the radiant emission from the Sun.

This is why we find so many ‘coincidences’ between planetary periodicities, orbits and interactive timings and the Sun’s activity in today’s solar system. For example, the inverse of the biggest planet Jupiters orbital period, 1/11.86 years is the average speed of rotation of the Sun, 30.8 days at 60 degrees of solar latitude. The distances of the planetary orbits from the Sun form a progression related to their mass and velocity, in accordance with the law of gravity, and as Miles Mathis notes, the three planets with the most stable orbits, Mercury, Earth and Saturn, all have the same apparent diameter as viewed from the solar surface. The timings of the orbital interactions of Jupiter and Saturn, Jupiter Earth and Venus, and the four Gas giants all coincide with various periods solar activity varies over.

Viewed from Earth, our Moon is the same apparent size as the Sun too. Is this just another ‘coincidence’? Miles Mathis thinks that unlikely, and has developed a hypothesis to explain it. He thinks that the fundamental force we call gravity actually has two components: The familiar force which pulls masses towards each other, and another component caused by the mutual bombardment of  radiant emission pushing them apart. They balance out to give us the rate of acceleration of free falling bodies we have always observed, but under certain circumstances, the rate of increase in the repulsive force can rise in strength relative to the attractive force due to the fact it is acting on the apparent diameter of the approaching body, whereas the acceleration of the attractive force acts on the mass. Mathis believes this prevents planetary collisions and explains the ‘natural distance’ between bodies which creates the conditions where the Moon and Sun are the same apparent diameter as seen from Earth.

Newton based his laws of motion on the idea that unless perturbed by other bodies, everything carries on in the speed and direction it is already going. In the case of the planets, he called this the ‘inate force’, the momentum derived from a body’s mass and velocity, which is then acted on by the forces of other bodies. This idealised situation relies on a frictionless vacuum for planets to travel through, and as we now know, ’empty space’ is not really empty, but teaming with particles and electro-magnetic forces, as well as the mutual gravitational perturbations which raise periodic tides and thus friction on the surface of Earth due to it’s mobile oceans, and in the interior of planets with molten cores. Indeed the heat raised by such ‘tidal kneading’ can be enormous, for example on Saturn’s Moon Enceladus, the heat generated by the resonances between itself, Saturn and the other moons keeps the water under it’s icy crust liquid, spouting 5000km long geysers into space.

This raises the question of why the planets don’t slow down, fall towards the Sun to restabilise their orbits, and lose the complex set of rhythms which maintain their mutual exclusion and prevent collisions. According to modern theory, the solar wind is no longer strong enough to play an active role in maintaining the planetary orbits and supply extra angular momentum. Is it perhaps that in conjunction with Miles Mathis’ underlying E/M emission field, just enough to maintain the status quo?

I think this might be worth considering, because the natural outcome of the big planets moving closer to the Sun would be for their orbital velocity to increase. If as we hypothesise, the cycle of solar activity is linked to the orbital rates of the planets, then this would speed up the solar cycle. According to NASA scientists Wolff and Patrone, the motion of the Sun about the centre of mass of the system causes more fusion to occur in the Sun than would happen if it did not have a planetary system orbiting it. Thus a speedup in the solar cycle would cause even more extra energy to be released. This would result in an increase in the speed and density of the solar wind, pushing the planetary orbits outwards again. This would in turn slow down their rate of orbit, and thus the rate of energy production in the Sun. Is this the feedback mechanism which maintains the stability of the system?

Comments
  1. Gary Turner says:

    “Is this the feedback mechanism which maintains the stability of the system?”

    Is there any evidence of past cycles or oscillations? What would constitute evidence of this mechanism?

    cheers,

    gary

  2. tallbloke says:

    Hi Gary,
    Solar physicist Leif Svalgaard told me that there would have been a spin orbit coupling between the Sun and the planets back when the solar wind was much stronger than it is now. He says it isn’t strong enough any more. My view is that it will still be non-zero, because the underlying physics is still the same. I also wonder if we sufficiently understand the interplanetary heliomagnetism to rule out an effect.

    Given that the occasional catastrophe occurs in the solar system, it seems to me likely that there is some kind of energetic feedback re-organising the planetary orbits such that the observed timing harmonics get re-established. This is a logical deduction, because the likelihood of the relationships found in the periodicities being due to chance are vanishingly small.

  3. Tenuc says:

    Gary Turner says:
    August 7, 2011 at 4:06 pm
    “Is this the feedback mechanism which maintains the stability of the system?”

    Is there any evidence of past cycles or oscillations? What would constitute evidence of this mechanism?…”

    The best evidence that the ‘tension’ between the charge (bombardment photon) field and the apparent attraction of gravity results in quasi-stable orbits is difficult to prove, as our records for past planetary orbits are at best poor. Good circumstantial evidence comes from Miles Mathis explanations of the various paradoxes concerning the moons orbit and an explanation about why Bodes law fails, along with a better way of explaining planetary orbits. The following papers provide some insightful ideas…

    The Moon Gives up a Secret
    http://milesmathis.com/moon.html

    A Complete Correction to and Explanation of Bode’s Law
    http://milesmathis.com/bode.html

    Also relevant to this thread are…

    THE HOLE at the center of the Sun
    http://milesmathis.com/sunhole.html

    How the Charge Field causes the Ice Ages
    http://milesmathis.com/ice.html

    All done using simple mechanics with maths even I can understand! Also without the need for dark matter, force at a distance or any other fairy dust. I wish mainstream science were equally transparent… 🙂

  4. tallbloke says:

    He has great style, but scientifically I’m not jumping in with Miles yet. He has some very promising ideas to be sure, but also some contradictions and difficulties to overcome. Not that mainstream science is free of those either! 🙂

  5. Tenuc says:

    tallbloke says:
    August 7, 2011 at 7:49 pm
    “…Not that mainstream science is free of those either! 🙂

    Agreed!!! The progress of mainstream physics has almost ground to a halt, because of it’s addiction to abstract maths based on invented virtual particles. The complexity of string theory is a good example of this, where the complex maths used is all but beyond comprehension. Do I believe that this will produce any worthwhile understanding of the physical world – frayed knot… 🙂

    While I too feel that Miles has some way to go before he can claim to have solved all the problems, at least progress is being made as he refines his ideas. I’m a great believer in Occam’s razor, and on these grounds alone I think Miles is further ahead of the pack than anyone since Einstein. His proof that Newtons gravity was already a unified field is a stroke of pure genius!!!

  6. tallbloke says:

    Hi Tenuc,
    I agree with you, but… I think the update I just made to the relativity thread may mean rethinks all round for Miles and the mainstream. 🙂 🙂

  7. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Tenuc: We can’t continue to live in ignorance of the charge field, or the way the galaxy plugs into the Solar system…. Miles Mathis, “How the Charge Field causes the ice ages”

  8. tallbloke says:

    I emailed Miles about what I think he’s missed regarding Milankovitch cycles and ice ages. He didn’t engage.

  9. adolfogiurfa says:

    May I say that imho, if we could accept that even “pebbles” are charges (as an absolute neutral body could not exist) we could explain everything with Max Planck´s equation, where only the ratio between the “legs” of the square triangle formed between electricity and magnetism would change (sin + cos), thus everything could become a issue of music 🙂

  10. tallbloke says:

    Adolfo, a symphony indeed. There is a set of related harmonies between the Sun and the planets which make sweet music. See the latest findings in comments on the ‘Jackpot’ thread. The discoveries are arriving thick and fast. 🙂

  11. Tenuc says:

    Thanks Adolfo, your last post just gave me a thought. The charge field acts along a line which is directly opposite to the apparent pull of gravity. This means that the barycentre is the real focus of the combined charge fields of the planets as well as being the imaginary centre of mass of the solar system. Could the solar cycles be linked to the ever changing position and intensity of this ‘energy beam’ as it travels in close proximity to or inside the sun?

  12. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Charged “pebbles” indeed!

    Space is very negative and bodies in space are quite positively charged. Warpage of the diaelectric of the atomic structure by electrostatic charges is the same as the warpage caused by gravity and that caused by changes in motion.

    Tenuc presents an inturesting observation. A barycenter of EMF connections. Both push and pull. Planetary position and orbit are not an accident but a part of the balanced whole. The greater the stirring of the solar body the greater the output and EMF coupling. The stronger the output, the further the planets are moved out and sped up, reducing the stirring. Kind of hard for gravity to provide this kind of feedback. pg

  13. pennlion says:

    Mind boggling and interesting. Could someone apply this argument at the Milkyway level? It would seem that it should apply. We can even look at the Orion star producing area where huge stars have strong winds and see if it holds there. I have had a gut feeling that there is more to the story than gravity and will watch you experts closely on this one…thks Bill

  14. Tenuc says:

    pennlion says:
    August 9, 2011 at 12:20 pm
    “…Could someone apply this argument at the Milkyway level? It would seem that it should apply. We can even look at the Orion star producing area where huge stars have strong winds and see if it holds there…”

    Yes, I too think it likely that the charge field powers the galaxy too, with the charge field from the galaxy centre powering each sun. Perhaps there is a source(s) of charge in the cosmos which powers the galaxy itself in a cascade which ends in each individual atomic particle.

    I have never been a believer in the Big Bang theory as I feel there is too much structure to be seen in the cosmos, with a real harmony of the spheres. Young galaxies seem to be appearing and old ones ending in a process of death and renewal. To me this looks like an ongoing continuous process rather that the random result of a large instantaneous event, which means the universe could be eternal.

  15. I am of the opinion that the process is an ongoing long fizz not a big bang. Where matter accumulates, it is drawn gravitationally into stellar growth with attendant planets, all suspended on the magnetic forces balancing between the gravitational attractions, whether as Miles suggests by electromagnetic repulsion, or just by virtue of the clumping of magnetic conduction thru the magnetically permeable materials, and homopolar generator driven effects of the spin orbit coupling between bodies as they share the greater flux of the Galactic magnet fields, they are suspended on.

    The homopolar effects pull positive ions onto the ecliptic, galactic, equatorial planes and negative charges are pushed to the edge of the heliopause, by solar wind effects, and out to the edges of galaxies, and above the plane of the galaxies to form globular clusters in areas of magnetic votricies, once the main spiral arms are formed.

    When matter is converted to energy and radiated away at close to or at the speed of light, it continues away from the source until the effects of crossing many static fields surrounding stellar bodies many light years away it condenses back to matter and starts the process of acclimating in that area. So in dense areas it fizzes off or boils away into energy, and condenses in areas of lower radational pressures.

    There are no black holes only dense matter accluminations that end up radiating at near dc / standing magnetic fields, generating quasars and other focused radio/ particle beam based events to dissipate the matter away into the lower density surroundings.

    I see the local galactic magnet fields interacting into the sun’s heliopause to steer the movement and interactions of the planets and sun around the SSB which others have hinted is the center of the magnetic flux focus which all bodies are suspended upon, and the sun is just another responder to the changes in local magnetic density that drives the system interactions. At this point in time the solar system is not being crowded by other stellar bodies so the climate is kind of stable.

    The magnetic poles of the sun IMHO are being pulled out of alignment with the rotational axis of the sun by the interactions of the density, gravity, and magnetic fluxes generated by the local spiral arm the solar system is passing through. By the solar system moving around in the milky way it would seem to me the solar system is a product of a long ago inclusion of a smaller cloud into the galactic mix, and is still “finding a stable neighbor hood to settle into”.

    The static charge due to the free electrons that are moved to the outer edges of the heliopause cause the stars moving about to repel each other preventing collisions, for the most part. The balance between the magnetic effects and the flowing ions in the solar wind is seeking to keep all of the local galactic fluxes in balance and the planets are along for the ride, responding to the incoming changes in the forward speed shifts and the angular dodges imparted long term needed to miss other stars.

    I think the tilt of the solar magnetic fields off of the rotational axis is driving the declinational movements of the Moon around the Earth moon barycenter, and the resultant declinational tides interacting with the magnet effects of the outer planet orbital dynamics gives rise to the 18.6 year changes and the inner planet harmonics produce the 6 year progression of the nodes, and the 17.95 year Saros cycle as a result. When the sun comes out of the spiral arm it will align with the galactic magnetic fields again and the axis of rotation and magnetic poles of the sun will realign again.

    When the declinational component of the lunar orbital dynamics, is thus no longer driven, the moons orbit will cease moving N/S on the ecliptic plane and the lunar declinational tides will always be in synch with the solar tides so the patterns of large scale blocking highs will be constant as the steady synchronization of the two effects will drive a constant la nina effect and drive lots of equatorial moisture into the mid-latitudes continually which results in ice ages, until we cross another spiral arm.

    Just my 2 cents.

  16. Tenuc says:

    Richard Holle says:
    August 9, 2011 at 3:57 pm
    “…Just my 2 cents.

    Hi Richard, I think you’re undervaluing your post which has lots of good ideas!

    Need time to mull things over before I can make a meaningful comment and am looking forward to the discussion. Seems progress is being made in several directions at the moment and thanks to Rog, the TalkShop is living up to its name.

  17. These ideas are not mine, it is a loose compilation of what I have read here and other places, as I see it fitting together. It is not often, I can give details or data to flush out the body of the knowledge Rog and others are putting together, mostly I see myself as a jig saw puzzle worker, helping to assemble the pieces as others turn them over.

  18. adolfogiurfa says:

    @pennlion: Like this?

  19. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Nicely done essay Richard.

    While it is true that to come up with an original thought is very rare,sometimes the talent is spotting the valuable grains among the chaff on the thrashing floor.

    2 cents indeed! Worth at least a cup of coffee. 😎 pg

  20. […] Richard Hollesays: August 9, 2011 at 3:57 pm […]

  21. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Richard Holle: When the declinational component of the lunar orbital dynamics… Remarkable!…”The devil is in the details”, as you have the gift of seeing the details…you are a gifted devil 🙂 ..But in what point of this development is the earth today?

  22. Tenuc says:

    Richard Holle says:
    August 9, 2011 at 3:57 pm
    “I am of the opinion that the process is an ongoing long fizz not a big bang. Where matter accumulates, it is drawn gravitationally into stellar growth with attendant planets, all suspended on the magnetic forces balancing between the gravitational attractions, whether as Miles suggests by electromagnetic repulsion, or just by virtue of the clumping of magnetic conduction thru the magnetically permeable materials, and homopolar generator driven effects of the spin orbit coupling between bodies as they share the greater flux of the Galactic magnet fields, they are suspended on….”

    I agree with the ‘long fizz’ if, as indicated later in your excellent post, this represents the constant process we observe in the Cosmos of the state change between energy and matter. I have seen estimates that the visible universe is made up of ~99% plasma, and wonder if larger aggregations, like the planets and the stars, are formed by the anisotropic charge field ‘shepherding’ the different size particles into groups? The magnetic and electrical effects we observe are created by the spins of the bombardment photons which comprise the EM charge field, according to Miles. Your post is providing me with much food for thought – thanks.

  23. Phil Clark says:

    Hello again, Tallbloke,
    Off topic, but … You mentioned at one stage the possibility of writing a paper on the impact of planetary orbits on solar events with particular reference to Z-axis deviations, as I recall.
    Did that paper eventuate? If yes, where can it be accessed – as I don’t want to repeat work that has already been done and can always learn from others’ writings.
    I think you are already aware that I’m trying to ‘connect the (perceived) dots’ between Jupiter et al, solar events (sunspots, etc) and earthly events such as ENSO and similar ‘numbers’ with potential downstream climate and seismic associations.

  24. tallbloke says:

    Hi Phil,
    Alas, life has been too busy in other aspects to get the paper written. Plenty of hints lie around the blog though, so feel free to seek out topics using the archive facility and ask questions on those threads.

    Keep us up to date with your research, we’re happy to do this stuff together in the open for the benefit of all. Join in.

  25. Jack Sprite says:

    It is an embarrassment that you would quote Miles Mathis as a source of reliable information. It is even more embarrassing that you would not check his numbers, [snip –co-mod].

    Mathis has apparently stated that Mercury, Earth, and Saturn would all appear the same size as viewed from the surface of the Sun. I calculated the angular size of each of these planets in radians, as viewed from the Sun’s surface, and this is what I found: Mercury, .000071–.000107; Earth, .000084–.000087; Saturn, .000038–.000042. Even considering the orbital eccentricities, how are these figures “the same”? Mercury and Earth may appear similar size at certain times, but both would nearly always appear at least twice as large as Saturn.

    This reminds me of the time Mathis “pointed out” that the ratio of dark matter to ordinary matter in the universe was 19, to satisfy one of his numerological musings. Well, it isn’t 19. It’s about 5.

  26. P.G. Sharrow says:

    While I am no fan of Miles Mathis and I accept your angular relative size calculations as viewed from the sun. The ratio of dark matter to normal matter is indetermined. It could be as much as 20 to 1 or as small as zero. Plenty of room to poke in any number you wish. I personally prefer a number near to 20, but this depends on the definition of dark energy/matter. pg