Solar-Planetary Spin Orbit Coupling: More evidence

Posted: November 19, 2011 by tallbloke in Astronomy, Astrophysics, Solar physics, solar system dynamics

In comments on the Jupiter Jackpot thread I noted in passing that there seems to be a relationship between the inverse of the period of Jupiters orbit and the rotation speed of the Sun. This didn’t arouse much interest at the time, possible because ‘inverse’ is an arcane mathematical term which doesn’t seem to relate to the physical world. But this was a shorthand. The inverse means one divided by the orbital period, which of course implies Earth years, because we measure orbital periods of the other planets in Earth years.

Let me restate the relationship in a way that may resonate more immediately with the reality of planetary motion:

Orbital Period (Earth) 1 year
————————————————-        =     Average  Spin Rate  (Sun)  0.0843 years = 30.79 days
Orbital Period (Jupiter) 11.86 years

Here’s another curiosity: There also seems to be a relationship between the period of conjunction and opposition of jupiter and Saturn, Earth’s orbital period and the solar rotation rate near the solar poles.

1 year
—————-      =   0.1 years = 36.78 days
9.93 years

What about the Solar equatorial rotation rate of 25.6 days? There are several estimates for the figure. Wikipedia gives 24.47 days  for example.  Earth’s orbital period divided by 3/2 times the Jupiter – Saturn conjunction – opposition cycle of 9.93 years (2/3 of the synodic period) gives us 24.52 days. Which other planetary resonances might be related?

I doubt these numerical relationships are “just coincidence”. The secret life of the solar system is being revealed by the harmonious relationships of it’s constituent parts.

However, the faster rotation of the solar equator relative to the poles is an enduring mystery. When I pressed Dr Leif Svalgaard over his assertion that it was explained by the mainstream dynamo theory he was forced to admit that: “it’s a work in progress”.  🙂

I think the explanation will be found in the ‘pumping’ action of the relative motion of the planets and Sun in the z axis due to the solar axis of rotation being inclined to the average plane of the planets orbits, the ‘plane of invariance’. But this notion is a work in progress too.

  1. malagaview says:

    Perhaps Immanuel Velikovsky was asking the right questions…

    Earlier we asked in relation to Saturn’s great prominence, was not the Earth at some early period a satellite of that planet?; and we may ask again, with the ascendance of Jupiter, was the Earth not in the domain of this successor to the celestial throne? Theoretically, if the Earth were revolving around Jupiter, a reversal of our planet’s north and south geographical poles would cause Jupiter to appear to change the point of its rising.

    Perhaps Jno Cook is right about a Saturnian Cosmology

    The distribution of asteroids is mainly in the region from 2 to 3.5 AU, between the planets Mars at 1.5 AU and Jupiter at 5.2 AU (with more among the inner planets and at 40 to 50 AU). The eccentricity of the orbits and the great variety of orbital inclinations suggest additionally that the asteroids represent a very old history of cataclysmic interactions. The distinct groups of iron meteorites and 3 groups of distinct stony meteorites (distinct by chemical and crystalline makeup) constituted four separate rocky or dead planets which could have inhabited the space between 2 and 3 AU, which were blown apart by Saturn entering the Solar System in the remote past, after an absence of 700 million years, and more frequently (at intervals of 250 to 300 million years) since the Cambrian.

    From my perspective, this answers the question of how close Jupiter was to the Sun before 3147 BC. I had earlier suggested, “at one or two AU.” Now Jupiter can be placed at 0.7 AU with fair certainty and probably on a fairly circular orbit. Saturn and its planets would have to be on an elliptical orbit which extended past 0.7 AU. That is the only way that Jupiter and Saturn could have “collided” (in 3147 BC) and for Jupiter to have been seen in the day skies at the time of the “collision,” as recorded in flood tales worldwide.

    Saturn in a possibility…

    Saturn’s moon Enceladus has often been regarded as a potential base for microbial life. Evidence of this life includes the satellite’s salt-rich particles having an “ocean-like” composition that indicates most of Enceladus’s expelled ice comes from the evaporation of liquid salt water.

    But Jupiter is something else….

    Jupiter is the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest planet within the Solar System.
    It is a gas giant with mass one-thousandth that of the Sun but is two and a half times the mass of all the other planets in our Solar System combined.

    Jupiter is primarily composed of hydrogen with a quarter of its mass being helium; it may also have a rocky core of heavier elements.

    Surrounding the planet is a faint planetary ring system and a powerful magnetosphere. There are also at least 64 moons, including the four large moons called the Galilean moons that were first discovered by Galileo Galilei in 1610. Ganymede, the largest of these moons, has a diameter greater than that of the planet Mercury.

    Along with the Sun, the gravitational influence of Jupiter has helped shape the Solar System.
    The orbits of most of the system’s planets lie closer to Jupiter’s orbital plane than the Sun’s equatorial plane (Mercury is the only planet that is closer to the Sun’s equator in orbital tilt), the Kirkwood gaps in the asteroid belt are mostly caused by Jupiter, and the planet may have been responsible for the Late Heavy Bombardment of the inner Solar System’s history.

    Which just leaves us to argue about the timing 🙂

    The Late Heavy Bombardment (commonly referred to as the lunar cataclysm, or LHB) is a period of time approximately 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago (Ga) during which a large number of impact craters are believed to have formed on the Moon, and by inference on Earth, Mercury, Venus, and Mars as well.

  2. malagaview says:

    However, the faster rotation of the solar equator relative to the poles is an enduring mystery

    Just wondering if the Van Allen Belt (torus) rotates at the same speed as the Earth…
    Just wondering if we know the rotation rate of the Sun’s Core…

  3. P.G. Sharrow says:

    @malagaview says:
    November 19, 2011 at 12:44 pm You are right on, almost!

    Look at the earths atmospheric rotation relative to it’s surface. The apparent surface of the sun is just the top of it’s atmosphere over it’s “ocean”. A very thick, hot and deep atmosphere, lots of wind and weather. pg

  4. tchannon says:

    There is highly contentious information MV, try using this as a search term

    neutrino “solar rotation”

  5. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Tallbloke: …opposition cycle of 9.93 years (2/3 of the synodic period) gives us 24.52 days 2/3=0.6666.., the perfect fifth!
    Here, its sound:
    @Malagaview : Just wondering if we know the rotation rate of the Sun’s Core……and its size….which we could find if we follow the laws of Rog´s arcane mathematical terms ….
    May be we could learn a lot of the old sages.

  6. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    Differential rotation is only the upper layers effect. It is to do with electric currents flowing in and out and the associated magnetic field and counter electromotive force either accelerating or acting as an electro-magnetic brake.
    This is diagram by Isralevich et al:

    as described here:
    (notice the places of work where the authors come from).
    However, not many main stream solar scientist are prepared to accept that the sun is primarily electric current system and magnetic fields are consequence of those currents. They still cling to the outdated and inaccurate image of in plasma frozen magnetic fields.
    Notice too that the authors have left the electric current circuits open, that is nonsense, current cannot flow if circuit is open (otherwise our electricity bills would be astronomical). The plasma universe people (in a rare attack of sanity) have logically completed the job by closing the circuit.

  7. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    current can’t flow if circuit is open

  8. tallbloke says:

    Call me old fashioned but I still think in terms of flows. The question is; what drives those flows. Perhaps a combination of electromagnetic forces and good old fashioned fluid dynamics, tides, changes in angular momentum etc.

    All options are open in my view.

  9. adolfogiurfa says:

    What does a flow is but moving particles= a current, wheresoever there is a current there is a potential difference.

  10. tchannon says:

    Can you be a little more specific on the meaning of “flow” because very often there are simple concepts which are hard to “get” but also there are always alternate views/mental models of the same thing. One might work.

    On the other hand you might be correct, something hasn’t been explained.

    For example I do not “get” the agw radiative, always involves handwaving and jumping. A problem might be I understand certain things rather clearly and that ain’t how it is.

  11. Ninderthana says:

    Here are my musings on this topic:

    I think that we will find that quiet a few resonances and near-resonances in the orbital periods of the planets. The real trick is to find the ones which actually influence the rotation rate(s) of the Sun.

  12. Anyone that is looking for a relation between the solar equatorial rotation and the polar rotations should read my article (published on this site) first:

    Mean equator: 25.75 days
    North polar field: 37.18 days
    South polar field: 37.4 days

    You can aslo see the change of the equator field there!!!!

    Thank you!

    Patrick Geryl

  13. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Flows of matter as well as charge create the conditions needed for current flow. Generally the water movement caused by wind and thermal gradients generate the charge differential needed for lightning and it’s EMF effects. Centrifugal force and thermal energy from below cause major “wind shear” between masses of hydrogen in both the “atmosphere” and the “ocean” causing huge currents in the layers and great EMF spikes in short circuits between layers. The apparent surface rotation is “tradewinds” of the suns visible “surface. The main magnetic fields are the result of the circulation difference between the upper and lower layers. When turbulence between layers get large enough for “shorts” we get “sun spots” EMF spikes. With enough disruption CME’s ,Coronal Mass Ejections, Look at the weather and wind of the energy poor Earth to get an Idea of the physics involved. Scale it up to the size and energies of the sun. GOD does not create different sets of rules for different conditions. Just simple rules that are used in multiplicities in larger sizes and higher energies. KISS 😎 pg

  14. adolfogiurfa says:

    @P.G. Sharrow: GOD does not create different sets of rules for different conditions
    However, since the episode of the Babel tower, we are not only confused by words but we indulge ourselves by creating every time many more, and the more we use the wiser we believe we are.

  15. tallbloke says:

    Yeah, well, talking is what we do at the talkshop so lets celebrate the power of language to communicate ideas as well as bemoan its ability to confuse and mystify.

    I think PG’s observations are insightful and tread a nice line between explaining too little and too much. My thanks to Pat Geryl (I will get around to answering your email Patrick!) too for the careful calculative work he has done.

    Clearly from direct observation of the solar surface we see ‘bands’ of moving material. It is not a simple gradient of velocity from equator to poles. This is similar to the sharply defined bands of weather systems on Jupiter too. Edge turbulence between bands moving at different velocities will also contribute to churning between layers going downwards too, and these regions spawn sunspots. Whether the solar core is spinning at a much different speed to the near surface layers is another unanswered question. My intuition is that it may be spinning faster, and this may be the principle reason for the eqatorial surface region spinning faster than the polar surface regions.

    The original motivation for this post is to ponder the relationship between planetary orbital velocity and solar spin velocity. If Ray Tome’s theory is right, the up-down motion of the solar core in the z axis will pump material in meridional flows towards the equator at the surface and awaty from the equator underneath. This moving mass will then also be acted on by the electromagnetic forces set up by the velocity differentials as PG suggests.

  16. Ulric Lyons says:

    Resonance between the 27.2753d Carrington period and synodic periods

    Ea/Me: 115.8874 (*4) / 27.2753 = 16.9937

    Ve/Me: 144.5683 (*10) / 27.2753 = 53.0034

    Ju/Ve: 236.9921 (*45) / 27.2753 = 391.00008

    Ju/Ea: 398.8873 (*8) / 27.2753 = 116.9959

    Sa/Ea: 378.09267 (*29) / 27.2753 = 402.0006

  17. […] change over time and G…P. Solar on Station change over time and G…Ulric Lyons on Solar-Planetary Spin Orbit Cou…tchannon on Station change over time and G…tchannon on Station change over time and […]

  18. P.G. Sharrow says:

    I’ve been thinking about cause and effect of this barycenter tug on the sun. The argument is always the tug on the sun is too small to effect a real change in the suns output. The energies involved in the sun’s own actions must be the main driver with the planetary effecting the signal strength of that output.

    The sun is a spinning, energy producing dynamo that radiates EMF in all bands from radio to Xray, and electrostatic as well as magnetic fields that extend far beyond the planets to the edge of deep space. As well as the pull of gravity between the sun and it’s orbiting bodies.

    The pull of gravity moves the sun toward the barycenter of the solar system by some amount We can determine the existence of exoplanets as well as their size and distance from their star by the wobble or dance of that star in space. We know that the center of mass and gravity of the solar system is not the center of the sun but may be as much as 4.4 solar radii distance from the sun’s center.

    The sun is not in “free fall” it is imbedded in local space, has mass /inertia, velocity and ROTATION. Rotation of the sun’ core as well as a faster rotation of it’s upper levels. As it rotates faster then the planets circling it, it must drag them all to some degree more or less. While it is easier to contemplate a sun or planetary body as a center point of influence, reality is not the case. Ocean and land tides caused by the sun and moon on the earth are a known fact. And those tides effect the earth’s rotation speed as well. Also a known fact. Therefor the reverse must be true.

    This uneven effect on the upper layer material of the sun due to it’s rotation, barycenter location and distance can have a greatly magnified effect on solar output due to turbulence changes between the active layers.

    During periods of close in barycenter the energy builds between layers as there is little turbulence caused by tidal drag. As the barycenter withdraws toward 4 radii turbulence greatly increases and energy out spikes up and then declines toward equilibrium with energy creation. As the barycenter approaches the sun the turbulence drops, output drops as energy from the core builds up in the layers, due to reduced turbulence. Therefor the creation of energy in the sun is little changed, the TSI ( temperature) is little changed. The solar output of other energies and sunspots spikes up during barycenter moves away and decrease as it approaches the sun’s center.

    And I want to thank those here that have been trying to educate me. 😎 pg

    [Reply] Back to the science already PG. I’ll join you there as soon as I can. – Rog