Theodor landscheidt: Sun-Earth-Man and the Kepler ratios

Posted: April 8, 2012 by tallbloke in Astrophysics, cosmic rays, data, Solar physics, solar system dynamics

In the previous post we discussed the work of Johannes Kepler and the ratios he found in the orbits and eccentricities of the inner solar system planets. It was also mentioned that in addition to the careful and accurate (given the observational data he gained full access to when Tycho Brahe died) work he did, he allowed himself some speculation regarding the Sun in the epilogue of his summum bonum work ‘Harmonice Mundi’ – The Harmonies of the World’. He appeared to posit a relationship between the motion of the planets and the sun’s activity, an intuition which would wait 370 years for confirmation, despite investigation by many scientists ranging from William Herschel in the early C18th, Rudolf Wolff in the C19th, to Paul D José in the later C20th.

The breakthough came not from mainstream solar scientists, who had rejected the idea that the planets could affect the Sun’s activity, but from astrologer and independent solar system dynamics researcher Theodor Landscheidt. He achieved this by considering the motion of the Sun about the centre of mass of the solar system, the  solar system barycentre (SSB).

This solar inertial motion (SIM) had been investigated by José and Ivanka Charvatova amongst others, including Australian scientist Rhodes Fairbridge. Fairbridge, who also investigated terrestrial climate cyclicities and weather phenomena, discovered important planetary periodicities in the paleoclimate data.

Lanscheidt’s approach was novel, he considered cyclicities to be working as ‘wheels within wheels’ whereby longer term cycles cause phase reversals in shorter term cycles when they reached maxima and minima at times when the shorter term cycles are vulnerable to a switch in state. Analysing datasets of solar proton events and large flares, he uncovered a rhythmic pattern in their appearance, which linked their occurrence to planetary cycles.

Experimenting with methods, he tried a fit with the accelerations caused by Jupiter Earth and Venus, plotting the solar events in relation to this motion.

To forestall dismissal of the method through accusations of ‘curve  fitting’ Landscheit had made predictions and lodged them with The Space Environmental Services facility at Boulder, Colorado. When he later plotted results, the match was excellent, and statistical work was undertaken to determine the significance of the results.

After this earlier success Landscheit turned to Kepler, and abstracted a more generalised principle to test, using the ratios 4:5:6 and scaling the combination of the sine waves to the erratic orbits of the SSB made by the Sun.

Fig 3. Prototypal pattern of a composite wave formed by the superimposition of harmonics with the frequency ratio 4:5:6. The time units 0-100 represent normalised centesimal fractions of JU-CM-CS cycles of any length. The positive phases of the composite wave coincide with clusters of solar cosmic ray events (P) observed from 1942 to 1969 and flare-generated X-Ray bursts equal to or greater than class X4 (marked by pointers) registered 1970 through 1986.

Again, Landscheidt made predictions and lodged them with The Space Environmental Services facility at Boulder, Colorado. These were also confirmed by scientist Hubertus Wohl of the Frieberg Institute for Solar Physics

In his 1988 book Sun-Earth-Man landscheidt said:

A pearson test [for statistical significance] yields X2=35.8 for 1 degree of freedom; P=7×10-10 [for the likelihood of the result being random chance]

The results presented here are only a first step in a new direction. It is intriguing that the ratio of the superimposed harmonics 4:5:6 is that of the major perfect chord in musical harmony. Kepler had found just this chord C-E-G when he analysed the ratios of the velocities of different planets at aphelion and perihelion. Kepler’s finding is also valid for the outer planets Uranus and Pluto. Thus, the major perfect chord turns out to  be a fundamental structural element of the planetary system. The results presented here are a new substantiation of the Pythagorean harmony of the spheres at a complex level that relates planetary configurations to the Sun’s oscillations about the centre of mass, solar rotation, the sun’s activity, and solar-terrestrial interaction.

Following Landscheidt’s death in 2004, a new generation of researchers has taken up the torch he relit and are actively researching Solar-Planetary relationships and solar system dynamics. The results of their work can be found in many of the posts and discussions on this website. But you won’t find him much cited or referred to in the mainstream literature, because although he was a proud and longstanding member of the American Geophysical Union, his work is dismissed as ‘astrology’ by mainstream scientists such as Geoffrey Dean. His work is banned from discussion at major popular science websites such as, where resident computer programmer and solar data collator Leif Svalgaard misrespresents his discoveries and blackens his name whenever it is mentioned.

Easter Sunday seems an appropriate day on which to resurrect interest in Theodor Landscheidt’s work and begin to restore him to his rightful place in the history of science.

  1. Brian H says:

    Lief’s motto: “Mihi in Verba” which may or may not be Latin for “Take My Word For It”.

  2. Brian H says:

    Google Translate informs me it should be: “Meum verbum enim”.
    Oh, well.

  3. tallbloke says:

    I’ll stick with what the Royal Society should be holding to: Their own motto

    Nullius in verba

    “On the word of no-one”

  4. archonix says:

    These days the RS seems to prefer the more literal, though less accurate “nothing in words” as translation. Telling.

  5. archonix says:

    Bah, me and my twitchy posting finger…

    Nothing in words. Science on a wink and a handshake.

  6. adolfogiurfa says:

    Typo: “Hose”, it must be “Jose”

    Click to access jose.pdf

    [Reply] Thanks Adolfo, fixed the fat fingers fing.

  7. vukcevic says:

    By tomorrow the sun will have ‘nul points’

  8. tallbloke says:

    Vuk: Heh, “Welcome to solar max”
    Looks like Leif’s label shuffling didn’t help much. 🙂

    Pat Geryl is predicting a big flare for around the 22nd this month

  9. J Martin says:

    Well I’m hoping for lots of sunspots during July and August, “nul points” will likely make for a cold summer holiday.

    Landscheidt has a good record with predictions, perhaps before I book some time on a French beach I should re-read Landscheidt’s works in an attempt to predict sunspot activity and hence find the optimum time to go ‘en vacance’.

    I guess a subscription to Pierre Corbin’s weather forecasting service might be one answer.

  10. tallbloke says:

    J Martin: best advice is to wait for the Sun to chuck out a biggish one that hits or goes close to the upstream side of Earth’s direction of travel, then get a short notice cheap flight 5 days later.

  11. Tenuk says:

    I find it reprehensible that main-stream science spends tax payers billions trying to defend untenable positions, while getting ever further from the truth. It falls upon brave pioneers, both professionals and part-time amateurs to further understanding. This old rhyme seems to sum it up – lets hope the obfuscating weasels are quickly popped… 🙂

    Half a pound of tuppenny rice,
    Half a pound of treacle.
    That’s the way the money goes,
    Pop! goes the weasel.

    Every night when I get home
    The monkey’s on the table,
    Take a stick and knock it off,
    Pop! goes the weasel.

  12. DaveR says:

    I check this site daily. My opinion is that Landscheidt is right on. Geoff Sharp keeps a daily sunspot record and commentary on the current solar cycle. Great work if you ask me.

  13. Phil says:

    His work is banned at WUWT? Didn’t Anthony Watts speak at a ‘restore the scientific method’ heartland conference? Talk about hypocritical.

  14. tallbloke says:

    Phil: Go easy on Anthony Watts. He is a busy guy and his only mistake here is taking Leif Svalgaard at his word. Landscheidt was a careful researcher. he calculated statistical tests for the results of his predictions. Leif never told Anthony that. He just told him in effect:

    “It’s nonsense, take my word for it.”

    I think the theoretical solar physics community is dreadfully insecure, because they have to bin their current models every time new instrumentation discovers something about the Sun they didn’t know, which in the white heat of the pace of technological development in space exploration, is pretty often.

    So when a gifted astrologer with a strong mathematical ability steps into their field with successful predictions and properly executed statistical analysis, there is a closing of ranks and they go into denial.

    Leif has his redeeming features; he’s very helpful with data and knowledge of the standard model. He just has a very negative attitude to anything to do with Solar-planetary theory, along with a lot of his colleagues. It’s perceived as a threat to their paradigm, though in fact, it could be complimentary to their idea of the ‘solar dynamo’ if only they could see it.

  15. Tenuk says:

    vukcevic says:
    April 8, 2012 at 10:08 pm
    “By tomorrow the sun will have ‘nul points’

    Meanwhile recurrent trans equatorial coronal hole (CH512) will be in an Earth facing position on 9th April – time for the tin-foil hats again!

    (Image courtesy Solen)

  16. Phil says:

    Ok, thankyou. I wish I could have had the opportunity to learn Mr. Landscheidt’s ideas on the glacial-interglacial cycle, perhaps he did work on this when the ice-core data came out in 2003? This has been my line of research of late, I hope to get my paper published.

    Given how fast these things begin/end (usually on the order of 50yrs to begin, 150yrs to terminate), the only sensible answer seems to be atmospheric circulation/pump mechanisms. Imagine a chaotic, weak, insufficient atmospheric circulatory system. Much less in the way of ‘heat’ pumped to the poles, water does not absorb ‘heat’ below ~0.15mm so the thermal atmospheric profile in the tropics go into spacial overload…equatorial regions thus see constant powerful bursts of convection, much higher cloud cover like nothing of today, just constant convection.

    There is VERY powerful evidence of not only this mechanism, but also celestial/tidal/magnetic activity (correlating to the precession cycle), operating the kinetic processes on Earth. Even now we can see the influence of the magnetic hale cycle on the 5 main atmospheric circulation cells.

  17. Phil says:

    pardon my half-asleep thought process above ^^^

  18. tallbloke says:

    Phil, no problem, you said some interesting things there. I’d like to know what your source is for the Hale cycle effect on the circulation systems please.

    One thing I would advise caution about is your idea that the ocean doesn’t absorb heat below the skin. It does. Not from back radiation, but from solar radiation, which penetrates up to 100m or so. Most of the energy is in the redder end of the spectrum which is absorbed in the first 60cm or so, but an appreciable amount of energy is deposited further down.

    There is a lot of misguided opinion about this floating round the climate blogs, but it’s easy to prove. The mud at the bottom of shallow lakes absorbs solar energy through reasonably clear water very well, and sets up convection which allows the heat to rise up through the water. This is easily measurable, and significant in magnitude.

  19. Malaga View says:

    the motion of the Sun about the centre of mass of the solar system

    I have seen many 2D plots showing the sun spiralling around the SSB… BUT I don’t know whether they are plotting East-West or North-South movements… AND I don’t know why I haven’t seen any 3D plots because the solar system is a three dimensional system… so I would welcome any feedback that might help me understand a little more… or any links to some 3D plots and/or analysis.

    I was reading Subdue The Earth [1980] by Walworth & Sjostrom and stumbled upon one of those Michael Caine not a lot of people know that observations 🙂

    Hurricanes are mirror images of Sunspots:
    Hurricanes start at about 8 degrees N/S and dissipate at about 35 degrees N/S.
    Sunspots start at about 35 degrees N/S and dissipate at about 8 degrees N/S.

    So my second request for feedback is for any links/analysis/information regarding the magnetic influences the planets may have over the sun… after all sunspots are magnetic phenomenon… so my guess is that the spiralling of the sun around the SSB is a loose proxy for the magnetic influences of the planets… but only a guess.
    Another thread in Subdue The Earth argues that tornadoes are sustained lightening bolts and the movement of the jet streams match the movement of ionised particles in a magnetic field [in a laboratory]. So my third request for feedback is for any links/analysis/information regarding those two electro-magnetic assertions.

  20. tallbloke says:

    Just to get us back on track a bit here an interesting pop up fact. We are always told that the Keplerian elliptical orbit has the Sun at one focus. This isn’t quite true. What Kepler didn’t know was that the Sun ‘leans back’ like a hammer thrower in field sports to counteract the angular momentum of the orbiting body. As a result, the focus of the ellipse is actually the common barycentre of the two bodies, not the Sun.

    Of course, the Sun has to do this with respect to 10 planets simultaneously, which is why the path it describes around the solar system barycentre is a complex dance of ever changing radii and angular velocity. Obviously, tiny planets at great distance like Pluto and Eris don’t contribute much to this complex motion, but it is a real motion nonetheless.

    The Jovian gas giants on the other hand(s) cause the Sun to move up to more than it’s own diameter wrt the barycentre as they orbit at different speeds.

    This plot from Paul D Jose’s 1965 paper shows the movement in the X,Y plane, the plane the planet’s orbit in (on average) I’ll dig out some z axis plots I did to show Malage View later.

    The full Jose paper is here:

  21. Malaga View says:

    I’ll dig out some z axis plots I did to show Malage View later
    Thanks Roger… that would be really great…
    Sunspots migrate N-S… so the SSB “Z” axis plots should be very interesting!

  22. Phil says:


    You’re right, I should have clarified what I meant by ‘heat’.

    As for the magnetic Hale Cycle, the evidence resides in the PDO and AMO cycles, which appear to driven by variations in wind/pressure/circulation cells that exist to distribute heat..basically to balance the thermal budget. Perhaps the most important example of this is the Hadley Cell/Walker Circulation..this tandom drives the trade winds and much of the AAM variation..hence ENSO.

    The image below represents the solar polar fields.
    Whenever the directional field begins heading south, the PDO flips, visa versa for the AMO, which begins flipping when the field crosses North:

    There is ACI data too correlating very well to this.

  23. J Martin says:

    Phil, et al,

    your link

    An interesting graph that one. What if it the two bands don’t intersect and instead start to diverge once more.

    What causes the magnetic poles on planet Earth to undergo excursions or reversals ? If I can speculate here, as the Earth’s magnetic field weakens the North and South magnetic poles can remain relatively stable, as long as the Sun’s 11 ish year pole swap continues. But if the Sun’s poles cease to swap for a (presumably substantial) period of time, does this then set the scene for the Earth’s poles to undergo an excursion or reversal, perhaps dependant on which way round the Sun’s pole’s settle.

    TB. Apologies if the above post might help cement the Talkshop’s location as “Way Out There”, but you could think of it more as “way out there with original thinking and new ideas”, after all, existing ideas haven’t given science any definitive answers about reversals or ice ages.

    Hopefully Vuk will have an opinion on whether the Sun could ever or has ever stopped it’s pole reversals, and what might happen here on Earth if it did.

    Since Leif created that graph, I can’t help but wonder if the same idea hasn’t crossed his mind.

    Magnetic excursions, reversals and glaciations do happen. Does the Earth do that all on it’s own or does it have a little external help.

  24. Tenuk says:

    Malaga View says:
    April 9, 2012 at 9:33 am
    “…So my third request for feedback is for any links/analysis/information regarding those two electro-magnetic assertions…”

    According to Miles Mathis, the charge field causes the magnetic field, so magnetic field strength is a good proxy for the number of photons being emitted by the sun. Also, the centre of mass of a spherical body has the highest charge field density, with most charge photons being ejected normal to the axis of rotation.

    This being the case, the ever spiralling barycentre becomes the centre of charge outgoing from the sun, with the inbound return charge field from the planets and the rest of the universe entering at the solar poles. Now the Constructal Law premise tells us for a system like the sun to remain reasonable stable over time, internal processes must self organise in such a way that they provide easier access to the currents (e.g. charge field) that flow through it.

    So perhaps the sun has multiple pathways of least resistance to charge photons and which path is being used at any moment in time depends on barycentre position. What we observe during the solar cycle is just the surface manifestation of these internal pathway changes?

  25. tallbloke says:

    Phil: Thanks, good connected thhinking.

    J Martin: We’re ‘way out’ alright. Way out in front. 😉
    Vuk may give you some ideas on magnetic reversals. Ray Tomes found some periodicity in them too, but it’s a work in progress.

    Tenuc: ” the inbound return charge field from the planets and the rest of the universe entering at the solar poles.”

    This may be why I found a stronger correalation between the z axis data and solar activity than Ian Wilson did with his X,Y study. I don’t think the dataset he used helped though.

    Anyway, here’s something really ‘way out there’ which might please you and Malaga View. Leif liked it when i told him it supported his view that later C20th spot counts by waldmeier were 20% high. Until he realised it supported my position too. 🙂

    The weird thing about this plot is that the sunspot count is running around 33 years ahead of the z axis motion, which is annual data with a 2x JU orbital period smoothing. I don’t know if it means anything or not, because the good match I get between J-E-V timings and contemparary solar cycle lengths is good. Who knows what temporal resonances could be occurring though. The point is, if you want a plot which opens the possibility of inbound phtons driving solar spin, this is it.

  26. J Martin says:


    That graph you show of SSN and SSB-Z is great. I especially like the 1810 anomaly. Planetary motion drives ‘business as usual’ sunspots, but every 200 or so years something overwhelms or disrupts normal business.

    But what I would really like to see is that graph extended back in time to include the Maunder Minimum.

  27. tallbloke says:

    Sergei: As long as Lean and Svalgaard don’t iron the data completely flat to remove all solar variation apart from the 11 year cycle, it doesn’t make much difference since the shape of the later Lean TSI proxy is very similar. Just the overall amplitude is reduced. We can scale to whatever they want to tell us is the latest reconstruction.

    Along with a lot of other solar scientists, I have my doubts about Svalgaard’s use of the magnetic records from the C19th to fix solar activity records hundreds of years ago. For one thing, Earth’s magnetic field is not independent of the heliomagnetic flux, like he claims it is. Ask Vuk.

    As I told him, “use your IDV index as an IDV index. Stop trying to tell dead scientists how to count sunspots”.

  28. tchannon says:

    J Martin,

    You could try one of the planetarium software packages or similar but I don’t know whether any can handle the barycentres.

    Solex can to some degree animate this but I’m not sure it is useful.

  29. Tenuk says:

    tallbloke says:
    April 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm
    “…The weird thing about this plot is that the sunspot count is running around 33 years ahead of the z axis motion…”

    Great graph, Rog, and I can see how that would cause Leif to have a hissy fit… 🙂

    Now 33y is around 1.5 Hale cycles, or 3 magnetic reversals. Could this be evidence that the orbits of the planets are entrained to the charge field of the sun, rather than the other way round? Movements of the planets would still be a good proxy for solar activity, and various climate cycles on Earth.

    If this is so, the next question we need to ask to understand the big picture, is what regulates the cycles of the sun? I don’t see anything convincing in the current standard solar model to answer this.

  30. tallbloke says:

    Tenuc: Every time I try to work out what that graph is doing to my ingrained sense of causality I come close to blowing a logic fuse. 🙂

  31. tallbloke says:

    Malaga View: Graph b in this plot shows the z axis motion of the Sun wrt the barycentre

  32. Malaga View says:

    Tenuk says: April 9, 2012 at 3:17 pm
    Could this be evidence that the orbits of the planets are entrained to the charge field of the sun, rather than the other way round?

    The planets of the solar system spiral through space as the sun moves….

    However, when you look at the Z-axis plot of the Aphelions and Perihelions a double vortex structure becomes apparent…

    So my guess is that a double vortex is driving both the sun and the planets. If the sun is at the centre of this double vortex structure then this would explain the differing rotational rates (by latitude) and observed pulsation of the sun.

    Planet Earth appears to be located at a very interesting intersection of the Aphelion and Perihelion lines in this double vortex structure. This may explain why the Earth has two main centres of total magnetic intensity in the Northern and Southern hemispheres… and perhaps that the Earth’s main magnetic field is externally driven.

  33. Malaga View says:

    tallbloke says: April 9, 2012 at 6:31 pm
    Thanks Rogers… very interesting plot…

  34. J Martin says:

    Malaga View said

    “This may explain why the Earth has two main centres of total magnetic intensity in the Northern and Southern hemispheres… and perhaps that the Earth’s main magnetic field is externally driven.”

    I like the idea that the Earth’s magnetic field has a large external component (driver). Vuk did once show a graph of just two curves, the simultaneous decline of the magnetic fields of the Sun an Earth, though I can’t find it on his site. I haven’t checked every graph on his site.

    The problem is difficult enough in two dimensions, three…

  35. tallbloke says:

    MV: Please could you explain your perihelion graphic to me with reference to this sketch

  36. J Martin says:

    Didn’t Fred Bailey do some work on this 3 dimensional aspect.

    “Bailey has produced the PCM track on which much of his findings is based, by using the published orbital data of the Jovian planets to take moments about the SSB, the consequent Sun-SSB dimensions appear to agree with other published findings e.g. Landsheight, Jose etc. but where Bailey has then gone i.e. taking into account the third dimension, is something new and has led to Bailey to believe that until proven otherwise, the Earth – Sun Chord Length must be ever changing but predictable, also because of the maths and logic used, then the Earth is deemed to orbit the SSB.”

  37. Malaga View says:

    MV: Please could you explain your perihelion graphic to me with reference to this sketch.

    This is all about looking at the solar in 3D… like your sketch… and trying to move away from a 2D image of the solar system [which is very misleading].

    The sketch you posted is moving in the right direction… but it is still not really accurate… or rather it is misleading because it is lacking in detail.

    For example:

    The orbit of the Earth around the Sun is not a smooth elliptical curve… the orbit of the Earth forms a snaking series of long S-bends around the Sun because of the Earth and Moon spin around their centre of mass [like a spinning dumbbell].

    It is said that the Moon orbits the Earth… but what is not said is that the Earth also orbits the Moon [like a spinning dumbbell]. My perspective is that it would be more accurate to say that the Earth and the Moon are Twin Planets with intertwined orbits around the Sun:

    That was just to illustrate the need to look at the Solar System in 3D… although it does leave me wondering whether the “standard” numeric values for many orbital parameters are correct… or are they calculated based upon a simple smooth elliptical orbit… but I digress.

    When I was looking for some “standard” numeric values for the planets in the solar system I stumbled across so hidden gems in Wikipedia:

    The gems are hidden inside the image descriptions:

    This image shows the orbits, nodes, and perihelion/aphelion positions of the inner planets. Seen from the northern ecliptic pole. The planets run counterclockwise. At the time of vernal equinox, the earth is at the bottom of the figure. The blue part of an orbit is north of the ecliptic plane, the pink part south. Green dot: perihelion; red dot: aphelion.

    This means that the Perihelion always occurs in the Northern Hemisphere [or the South depending upon the planet] and vice versa for the Aphelion… but the Wikipedia images are in 2D… so I decided to look at the Z-axis detail of these two diagrams in Excel… plotting the Aphelions and Perihelions in the appropriate Northern or Southern hemispheres…and to get a feel for the “space” the planets occupy [as they orbit the Sun] I mirrored the values to the left and right of the Sun.

    Thus the diagram provides a 2D cross section of the planetary orbits and reveals the double vortex nature of the Solar System… hence my developing interesting in 3D analysis.

    [Sorry for the indirect answer but it is difficult to reconcile these 2D and 2D images… especially as scaling causes the finer detail to be lost in my diagrams of the Solar System]

  38. Malaga View says:

    The double vortex is a complex, varied and dynamic structure that is diffcult to illustrate…

    Venus’s double vortex raises new mystery

  39. tallbloke says:

    Very interesting images MV. I’ll confess I’m struggling to see how they fit together with the spiral motion of planets as they head along with the Sun through galactic space though. I’ll ponder what you’ve written some more.


  40. Brian H says:

    Planetary resonance, ultra-obvious variety:

  41. Malaga View says:

    Michele Casati says: April 10, 2012 at 8:30 am
    Esoteric idea

    The magnetic double vortex research of Howard Johnson is far less esoteric 🙂
    and far more amazing 🙂

  42. Lawrence A P Wilson says:

    To Malaga View (MV) – perhaps you are familiar with it, but if not there is a useful animation on the Celestia site of the Sun’s track around the SSB but still 2D but in its way it indicates the 3D phenomena – it’s at

    To J Martin (JM) – Fred Bailey has done a very extensive amount of work on the 3D dynamics indeed the ‘tube’ sketch which our host posted is Fred Bailey’s – Bailey constructed that for his book on the matter which is referenced on his solarchords website the link to which you quoted. The website summarises the essence of his analysis as detailed in his book.

    MV – You are correct to say that sketch is simplified and appears inadequate but I would add ‘as posted on this blog’ – but if you read it in the fuller context of his book/treatise it is most adequate. He quite deliberately simplified it for his book, but he would agree with what you say about the Earth/Lunar barycentre effect, and that if he had shown this we would see the snake like movement around the Earth/SSB orbit.

    The sketch however does demonstrate the equally snake like movement of Earth along and about the galactic path – the Earth being variously to the ‘East’ or ‘West’ of the SSB, and ahead of the SSB (at the aphelion) and behind it (at the Perihelion) – note the ecliptic leans back at 45 degrees. Similarly, the Sun (not shown on that sketch but on others in his treatise) is also variously to the East/West/North/South and also ahead or behind the SSB (the 3rdD), and to ever changing distances as dictated by the composite gravitational moments of the planets – but predominantly the Jovians. As Newton, Fairbridge, et al have referenced the cycle repeats (the SIM) about every 178 years – but it’s never precisely the same, but quite close to the same, at least within millenial periods.

    JM – You also say –
    “……also because of the maths and logic used, then the Earth is deemed to orbit the SSB.”

    Bailey I believe would say this in reverse based on Newton, Fairbridge et al – all planets orbit the SSB primarily – and the Sun also but as it does its own SIM around the SSB too. Now there has been and still is some debate on this with some (but not astronomers) claiming only the Jovians do so, whiclst the small rocky planets are locked in orbot of the Sun.

    I have in recent months put this question to four astrophysicists around the world – independently to each. Two Professors (separately) at Swinburne University in Melbourne, one Professor at Cambridge University, and one AP lecturer at Cornell University. Each of them, were immediate and unequivocal in their responses – all planets orbit the SSB, two adding that this has been demonstrated both mathematically and by observation.


  43. tallbloke says:

    Lawrence Wilson, welcome, and thanks for your contribution.
    I really wish you’d pressed the prof for a references to the proof and observations.

    If what you are saying is correct, I would expect the calculations for the observations of the heliacal rising of Mercury used to prove Einstein’s theory of relativity to have included terms for Sun-Earth barycentric deviation.

    The Sun is 1.4Mkm in diameter and moves around the barycentre within a range of around 3.2Mkm. Mercury is only around 41 solar diameters away. Why would Mercury orbit the barycentre, a notional point in space defined mainly by the far distant gas giants and the mass of the Sun, rather than the object several million times more massive than itself which is so close to it?

    To be sure, Mercury and the Sun orbit their common barycentre, but that is a different issue. Are you sure the Astrophysicists you asked didn’t misunderstand your question?

  44. Brian H says:

    It puzzles me that you’re puzzled about Mercury. The very definition of barycenter is that it is the net, common center of mass (of all interacting bodies in a system). How could Mercury not orbit it? As for the nearness and massiveness of the sun, that’s all part of the computation of where the SSB is.

    If you wish to set a “frame” around the Sun and Mercury, and track the rest of the SS relative to that, that’s fine. But it’s just a choice of POV. No biggie.

  45. tallbloke says:

    Brian: The solar system’s barycentre is of course within Mercury’s orbit, so speaking loosely, you could say that Mercury orbit’s the SSB. But I think that barring some minor perturbations from the gravitation of other planets, Mercury actually orbits the Sun/Mercury barycentre, which is very close to the centre of the Sun, and unchanging. So Mercury orbits the Sun while the Sun orbits the SSB.

    If this wasn’t the case, then TSI on Mercury would vary wildly over decadal periods, and I don’t believe it does.

    Why is this important?

    Because for the more distant, larger planets, starting with Jupiter, with longer orbital periods, there is a greater degree of ‘freedom’ to orbit the SSB rather than slavishly following the Sun in it’s motion around the SSB. In fact, they cause most of that motion, but because they have such enormous angular momentum, I suspect they don’t quite maintain the letter of the law in their gravitational relations with the Sun.

  46. Malaga View says:

    Why would Mercury orbit the barycentre, a notional point in space defined mainly by the far distant gas giants and the mass of the Sun

    The Celestia animation visualises the orbital plain balancing on a fulcrum…
    and shows the orbital plain see-sawing under the influence of gravity…
    So does the Sun actually “wobble” about the calculated SSB artefact?
    Does the calculated SSB artefact “wobble” about the sun?
    I don’t know whether anyone has actually observed and measured these wobbles…
    I don’t know which planetary variables have actually been measured…
    I don’t know which planetary variables are continuously monitored…
    I know some planetary variables are calculations – like mass…
    I know some planetary variables are continually changing – like distance
    I know gravity doesn’t explain elliptical orbits….
    Unless someone can point me at some real observations I will assume these “wobbles” are just mathematical artefacts… like so much of modern science 😦

  47. edcaryl says:

    Mercury orbits the SSB. It, and all the other bodies in the system, orbit in the gravity field of ALL the bodies in the system. Because of the distances and relative masses, this fact can usually be ignored, but not in the case of Mercury.

  48. tallbloke says:

    OK Ed, I’m outnumbered now. So I’ll have to dig out the originaal calcs done to prove Einstein’s theory. You can’t predict the heliacal rising of Mercury as seen from Earth to within the milli arc seconds required unless the Sun’s motion relative to the SSB is included, if it orbits the SSB and not the Sun-Mercury barycentre unless this is accounted for in the prediction.

  49. Lawrence A P Wilson says:

    Tallbloke (T) – re “I really wish you’d pressed the prof for a references to the proof and observations”.

    Further in person meetings are scheduled in Melbourne, and possibly at Cambridge over the next
    two months for precisely that purpose. Certainly the mathematics were computed by Newton and Fairbridge (no doubt others too); I and my local colleague here in OZ who will attend the meeting with me here are certainly looking forward to learning about the observational evidence.

    Another local scientist/mathematician here, Dr Richard Mackey, has studied and written extensively on Fairbridge’s life’s work, and in the context of Newton’s analysis. I don’t think I can attach a file here but readers may run a Google on Richard Mackey and see his – ‘Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate’ – it’s a good overview on the ideas.

    T – you ask did they misunderstand the question – this was the question to each –

    “Does the Earth orbit the SSB or the Sun”?

    With the elaboration – “some people argue that only the Jovians orbit the SSB, and that the Earth and other small rocky planets are locked in orbit to the Sun”. If they misunderstood that I can’t imagine how they ever made it to Professor!. BTW – one meeting was in person the others via phone/email.

    To MV – re “So does the Sun actually “wobble” about the calculated SSB artefact” ?

    It is often described just that way, as a ‘wobble’. And in fact astronomers use exactly that description when they discover planets orbiting around other far distant stars (suns) – that is how they discover planets around such stars – rather than actually necessarily seeing the planets they observe the ‘wobble’ (via ‘wobbly’ movements of that star relative to other distant objects in the cosmos) which indicate the star has planet/planets whose composite gravitational moment causes the star to move away from its otherwise galactic path line, and move about its SSB just as ours does.

    This is also an indirect form of evidence that our star, the Sun, ‘is wobbling’ around its SSB rather than the SSB wobbling around it (re your – “Does the calculated SSB artefact “wobble” about the sun”?) – if it did that, scientists would not see the ‘wobble’ of distant stars which have planets – they certainly cannot ‘see’ an SSB at all.

    T et al – re the Mercury question – I have not studied this planet’s behaviour adequately to offer much – but it is so small in mass that I would have thought its contribution to the composite gravitational moment of the entirety of our system’s planets would be miniscule. Certainly, as tiny as it would be, it will have a theoritical barycentre with the Sun, but I believe that is not identifiable as such because it becomes ‘incorporated’ into the composite planetary moment, together with that of all our planets – but with the Jovians ever dominating the phenomena.


  50. Malaga View says:

    Lawrence A P Wilson says: April 11, 2012 at 2:04 am

    Wonderful response….

    Great paper

    Click to access ICS176.pdf

    Amazing 3D diagram

    Thank you!

  51. tallbloke says:

    Lawrence, thanks for your further reply, and please be sure to keep us updated.


    Taking Newton’s law: Force=Grav Const. x ((M1 x m2)/r2)

    For Sun-Mercury we get F=6.674*((2×1030 x 3.3×1023)/(58×109)2)=1.31 x 1039N

    And for Jupiter-Mercury we get F=6.674*((1.9×1027 x 3.3×1023)/(778×109)2)=6.9 x 1027N

    Which is 12 orders of magnitude smaller. Saturn-Mercury, even smaller.

    Now, if the gravitational force the Sun is applying causes Mercury to orbit at 58M km, then the force Jupiter applies will make around 0.0000000001% difference to Mercury’s orbit when it is on the opposite side of the Sun to when it is on the same side of the Sun to Mercury.

    But at the same time, Jupiter and Saturn will cause the Sun to move about 2.8Mkm with respect to the solar system barycentre, which is ~5% of Mercury’s orbital distance as they move from conjunction to opposition.

    Why the difference?

    Well, it’s because Jupiter and Saturn cause the Sun to move wrt the solar system barycentre. And the Sun, takes Mercury (and the other inner planets) with it. The net result is, Mercury orbits the Sun-Mercury Barycentre, notwithstanding a very small perturbation caused by the other planets.

    Hope this helps clarify the situation, though from past experience, this thread could run for a good while longer. 🙂

  52. Lawrence A P Wilson says:

    T – I shall certainly keep the blog updated as we progress with our exploration on this issue. Like you I also suspect this matter will run for a while yet whether on this thread or future threads.

    On your response – a few comments: –
    # You didn’t include the 2 part of the r2 in the equations you quoted but I note you did use it in the computations.

    # You have the r2 items to the power of 9 – shouldn’t this be power of 6 ?

    # Having said that and using power of 9 for the present my arithmetic produces a different answer for the Sun-Mercury equation – I get 1.31 times 10 power 33 – I’ll check my maths again later; maybe I screwed up. I have the same answer as you for your J-M calculation – 6.91 times power 27. My comps. are using the r2 at power 9 – but it looks like you have used power 6 for the S-M comp. (correctly I think) and power 9 for your J-M comp.

    # Using power 6 for each I get S-M at 1.31 times 10 power 39, and, for J-M 6.9 times 10 power 36 – a three orders difference only.

    # your ‘r’s are the mean distances you would say between Mercury and Sun (58*10 power 6 ?), and between Jupiter and Sun (778*10 power 6) – I of course (since we don’t agree on this) would say SSB instead of Sun.

    # Also you use the 778 figure as the mean distance figure for J-M, but isn’t that in fact the figure for J-Sun, or for me J-SSB. I note you in a sense justify using that figure by saying the variance from this for M’s being in opposition or conjunction is not significant. But it is a distance mean of +/- 58 to the mean 778 figure.

    # I struggle to see that this is insignificant in the effect on calculated Force – my numbers show between +/- 15-20% difference in F. But I’m also not sure I’m clear on what you mean re effect on M’s orbit.

    # Im surprised at the 2.8Mkm figure you mention – my understanding (Newton/Fairbridge) has been the maximum movement between the SSB and the Sun’s centre of mass would be about 1.5Mkm or about 2.13 Sun’s radii – and that magnitude would be a rare event, with maximums of around 0.8/1.0 Mkm being more typical.

    # Finally, and in any case notwithstanding the above, I don’t see the link between all of this and your assertion that it means the inner planets are all locked to the Sun. But I will think more about it – and also re-run my numbers tomorrow as a further check.


  53. tallbloke says:

    Lawrence, thanks for the heads-up on the formatting, I’ve fixed that.

    I used 109 because the gravitational constant uses metres so the orbital distances in millions of km need an extra power of three to convert to metres too.

    Wiki says: F is measured in newtons (N), m1 and m2 in kilograms (kg), r in meters (m),

    I often get maths muddled since the crash I was in so I’ll go through it again to double check and then update this comment.

    Cheers – TB

  54. Lawrence A P Wilson says:

    TB – I’ve spent quite a bit of time thinking about your penultimate comments, trying to comprehend their meaning – not sure with what success, but here’s a line of thinking which outlines the level of understanding of things at which I have arrived over the years – hopefully it’s somewhere near the mark, but time will tell.

    It seems to me as if two separate (if somewhat connected – isn’t everything in this field?) mechanisms are somewhat intermeshed in your comments – first the Newtonian universal gravitational force mechanism, second the Kepler/Newton modified solar system Centre of Mass – SIM mechanism.

    The first mechanism, with our spinning Sun as primary driver, has via gravitational force dictated that the planets which emerged from the Sun or from space, each of which is of varying mass and composition, have taken up their various positions in terms of distance from the Sun, in their various eliptical orbits, travelling at their various orbital velocities, and spinning at their various axial spin rates; and has achieved the basically balanced and stable solar system, planet by planet, and as a whole which we now experience. No doubt there are a few other dynamics within this generally closed system relating to this primary mechanism – perhaps orbital precession, variable ellipticity, planetary obliquity and precession, and so on. All this via the F=G*(M1*M2)/R2 driver.

    I see all of that as a very highly dynamic and complex system, filled with myriad gravity directed forces and sub-forces/vector forces operating in all three dimensions in and around the SS ecliptic and along its galactic path – but all of which forces balance out so that the total system remains stable within itself and sustainable.

    The second mechanism relates to the centre of mass of the total system, the SSB; this I have come to comprehend as a much simpler force mechanism involving each planet applying its moment/angular moment (basically mass times distance, vectored as appropriate) and aggregating to describe (at any instant in time in a contimuum) the location and magnitude of the centre of mass of the aggregation of planets.

    That planetary composite position in turn obliges the Sun to move its position so that it balances its centre of mass with that of the planetary aggregation. This balancing transmission occurs along a straight line from the planetary CofM to the Sun’s CofM which passes through the SSB which remains positioned continuously on the galactic path. The Sun’s new position is at a distance from the SSB such that its moment equates that of the planetary aggregate. I stress my view that all of the planets participate in the PCofM aggregation – but clearly the Jovians with their mass and distance dominate the process.

    The basic mathematics of this process I understand to be the oft quoted ‘see-saw’ equivalent – mass times distance = moment. I do not believe Newton’s universal gravitational force equation applies to this mechanism in the manner you appear to apply, and particularly preferentially to just the inner set of planets – I suspect a much better mathematician than I could demonstrate that applying two sets of rules is invalid and would leave an unbalanced system.

    No doubt this may appear an over simplified model set – but after all I am but a humble citizen scientist at best – but it is my view until such time as I am shown to be in error. I should add that analysis of the type referred on this blog above by Ian Wilson and Geoff Sharp re the potential influences of identified periodicities of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune on the SIM, and solar activity I found very interesting and these certainly further advance the quest (or at least mine) for understanding.

    Cheers – LAPW

  55. tallbloke says:

    Hi Lawrence, and thanks for your thoughts. here are mine.

    Part of my time as a professional engineer was spent dynamically balancing centrifugal pump impellers. These are cast all in one and a bit like propellers with a shroud on each side. The machinist would set the casting up getting the core as level and concentric to the axis of rotation as possible within the limits of what he could see and measure down the slots in the periphery of the casting, and then machine the outside to shape and size.

    Inevitably, with sand castings, diifferential cooling would make the end result less than perfect, and as these big chunks of bronze, weighing several hundreds of kg in some cases, were destined to spin at some impressively high speeds in service, they had to be balanced to minimise vibration in the finished pump.

    Getting a static balance is easy, you just put the impeller on a mandrel, on knife edges, let it settle until the heaviest point is at the bottom, and add weight (heavy putty) to the topmost point until the impeller spins to a halt without settling at the same point each time. But this is only the first step in getting the impeller dynamically balanced, because when it is spinning at high speed, the out of balance forces generated by mass being unevenly distributed act at each arbitrarily small distance from centre to periphery, much grinding and cursing later, you achieve a balance.

    Sorting this puzzle out is a black art.

    The solar system cannot be dynamically balanced. The out of balance forces in it are the reason the whole solar system vibrates with resonant harmonics, and this is what has brought a measure of order to the system. I believe it also affects the cyclic variation in the output of the central star, and that in turn affects the strength of the heliomagnetic field which the planets interact with, and cause feedbacks to the Sun through. There are gravitational/tidal effects too.

    A feature of cybernetic feedback loops is that they oscillate either side of equilibrium, like a Watt planetary governor on a steam engine, and so in the solar system we see longer and shorter term angular momentum exchanges between planets, varying length cyclities in solar activity levels, and Milankovitch cycles of obliquity, orbital eccentricity and axial precession in planetary orbital parameters. The system gets as close to balance as it can, but can never achieve it, due to the irreducibly out of balance nature of the disposition of masses within itself.

    I’ll update my calcs next and say a bit more about what I think they illustrate in terms of the two mechanisms you described.


  56. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Malaga View: Really enlightening. As seen from a larger perspective: All vortex solar bubbles connected, an interrupted current of connected suns, at Andromeda:

    Planet Earth appears to be located at a very interesting intersection of the Aphelion and Perihelion lines in this double vortex structure.

  57. Lawrence A P Wilson says:

    TB – look forward to sharing that with you – I find acquiring fresh insights always assists understanding.

    I too started out as an engineer – a chemical engineer (you know, the old saying – enough chemistry to fool the engineers, enough engineering to fool the chemists, and enough electrics to fool ourselves!) – so I’m well familiar with pumps and other items occasionally taking a merry dance off their footings due to design or more often process imbalance and/or resonance harmonics taking over. Once you have achieved mechanical balance and cushioning of any secondary harmonics you were away and clear. It all stayed nicely in place and proceeded smoothly.

    Seems to me likewise with the SS, otherwise bits would fall off, or it would wander off the galactic path. Maybe it still will one day. Of course maybe too there are minor transfers of mass into energy emanations (electromagnetic, etc) so in a sense bits may be falling off continuously.

    A great mystery it is – but fun to play with

    Cheers – LAPW

  58. Brian H says:

    And don’t forget that the speed of gravity is hugely super-luminal. <:-)

    But I'm not so sure about the speed of magnetism. /:-(

  59. E.M.Smith says:

    FWIW, I think the method by which solar changes couple into AMO PDO etc is the circumpolar currents and vortex. One proposal is that the very low UV causes atmospheric height to shorten. This speeds up air flow in the polar vortex that speeds up the circumpolar current (like pulling in arms while spinning, the wind speeds up. Wind drives the current).

    When this faster moving current hits Drake Passage, it can’t all fit, and being faster, more gets diverted up the S. American / Chile coast, putting more cold into the center of the Pacific. (And speeding up the S. Pacific gyre). On the other side of Drake Passage, the increased pressure of water slamming into it makes the ‘jet’ coming out the other side a bit faster, speeding up the S. Atlantic gyre.

    Also, on the question of how the planets might stir the sun, I’ve been exploring gravity gradient torque which causes satellites to tumble / spin. I think this matters for the sun as well. No answeres yet, but it is a significant force on satellites. The sun being fluid will slop around rather than just spin. The satellites are solids, so have no tide. ( A tidal force without a tide?)

    At any rate, Leif frequently talks about how the tides are too short on the Sun to matter, but I think that the tides in a metal satellite are even less tall, and they get pounds of torque added…

  60. tallbloke says:

    Hi Chief, do join the new thread on the de Jager paper too.

    Tidal force is spread across a solid body because it is rigid. The Sun has a rigid interior below ~0.72r and a wobbly roiling mess of convecting plasma from there to the surface, which is highly mobile and volatile.

    So tidal forces on the Sun from planets will cause interacting resonances in the rigid interior, but near the surface the tidal effect will be localised by the plastic deformation of the plasma, causing all a planet’s induced tidal force to act on a small cross sectional area which extends downwards.

  61. E.M.Smith says:

    Oh, also FWIW: I’m pretty certain that all objects must orbit the common center of mass (though we may pretend otherwise at times to make calculations easier) as all gravitational forces from all those masses do exert pull

    For Mercury, the wiki says it has one of the most eccentric orbits, which is what you would expect from a sun centric coordinate system.

    Mercury is the innermost of the eight planets in the Solar System. It is also the smallest, and its orbit has the highest eccentricity of the eight.

    69,816,900 km
    0.466 697 AU


    46,001,200 km
    0.307 499 AU

    So we have about 23.8 x 10^6 km of eccentricity and even when all the planets are on one side of the sun the barycenter is only about 5 x 10^6 km above the surface. So the eccentricity of the orbit more than accommodates that distance of movement.

    Per the Earth / Moon system: We are, more properly, a twin-planet system. The moon never really goes retrograde during our orbit of the sun. We both move forward just changing relative speeds a bit as one pulls ahead then the other. For above it looks more like a weave than a mutual orbit. Yes, the earth-moon barycenter is always in the ‘right’ position between the two of us, but it, too, is in motion around the sun…

    Unlike most other moons in the Solar System, the trajectory of the Moon is very similar to that of its planet. The Sun’s gravitational pull on the Moon is over twice as great as the Earth’s pull on the Moon; consequently, the Moon’s trajectory is always convex (as seen when looking inward at the entire Moon/Earth/Sun system from a great distance off), and is nowhere concave (from theperspective just mentioned) or looped. If the gravitational attraction of the Sun could be “turned off” while maintaining the Earth–Moon gravitational attraction, the Moon would continue to orbit the Earth once every sidereal month.

    For a picture, see:

    Though the same folks who couldn’t accept Pluto as a planet want to use that the Earth Moon barycenter is not outside of the earth to define it as a moon, rather than actual orbit shape and who really orbits whom…

  62. tallbloke says:

    Chief: “So the eccentricity of the orbit more than accommodates that distance of movement.”

    Sure, and in this sense, Mercury does indeed orbit the barycentre of the solar system, as I said to Lawrence above. But, the eccentricity of Mercury’s orbit precesses around the Mercury-Sun barycentre, not the SSB. I have no doubt that the Sun’s motion about the SSB affects that rate of precession, via the rhythm of other planet’s combined gravitational forces (not their tidal forces, although they are real, but much smaller). But because the Sun’s gravitational pull on Mercury so overwhelms the other planets direct instantaneous forces, Mercury is forced to follow the Sun as it gyrates its everchanging dance around the SSB.

    This is true for the other inner planets too, although the forces from the big outer planets get stronger and the Sun gets weaker as you go outwards to the orbit of Mars. Then when you get to Jupiter the situation is dramatically altered, because Jupiter and Saturn are actually causing most of the Sun’s motion with respect to the SSB, in combination with Neptune and Uranus.

    If it wasn’t true for Earth, say, and Earth was orbiting the SSB rather than the Sun, the changes in TSI correlating to the changing Earth-Sun distance would be easily to separate as a residual from the TSI record.

  63. […] Theodor landscheidt: Sun-Earth-Man and the Kepler ratios […]

  64. Sagars says:

    Belated Birthday Wishes to His Holiness!!! 🙂
    (March 10, 1927)

  65. ferd berple says:

    Modern ocean tides are predicted extremely reliably using the principles of astrology. In contrast first principles do a horrible job predicting tides.

    Early humans learned to predict the seasons in a similar fashion long before they learned the cause. It is one of the biggest fallacies in science that you need to understand something before you can predict it. We have been predicting gravity for hundreds of years without understanding its cause.

    The complete nonsense lies in believing you can ever know “why” in an infinite universe. The best you can ever hope for is an approximation. And every time you look deeper, you will find another layer of complexity, with no end at any scale.