A comment to an old thread by Howard Bailey in effect promoting his father’s web site correctly suggests the subject is of interest to Talkshop readers and very likely to Tallbloke. (co-moderator writes)
Comment here Interview with Ivanka Charvatova: Is climate change caused by solar inertial motion?
Promotion of a book and video? We are not commercial but this seems benign and will add more eyes.
Link
Welcome to my Solar Chord Science Website (opens in new page)
In the menu there is a link to some information about the ideas presented.
The following image copied from the website is intriguing
Please come back to the Talkshop for discussion.
Article posted by co-moderator
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Tim,
I am sorry but I have to disagree with this post on basic scientific grounds.
The centre-of-mass (COM) between the Earth and the Sun resides about 500 km above the centre of the Sun, along a line joining the Earth and the Sun. The Earth and the Sun move about this COM in such a way that that they are always located on opposite sides of the COM. This means that the variation in distance between the Earth and Sun is zero, not 1.5 million km as claimed by Dr. Bailey.
[
Both the Earth and the Sun move about the centre-of-mass (COM) of the solar system. And yes, this can lead to a change in distance between the COM and the Earth/Sun of ~ 1.5 million km over a period ~ 9.93 years. However, during that period the Earth-Sun distance does not change.]Both the Earth and the Sun move about the centre-of-mass (COM) of the solar system. And yes, this can lead to a change in distance between the COM and the Earth/Sun of ~ 1.5 million km over a period ~ 9.93 years. However, during that period the Earth-Sun distance does not change [other than that caused by the elliptical nature of the Earth’s orbit].
All changes in the solar insolation that are received at the Earth are caused by the changing Earth/Sun distance caused by the elliptical shape of the Earth’s orbit, NOT the changing distance between the Earth and Sun caused by motion of the Earth and Sun about the COM of the Solar System.
I am sorry to say it but Dr. Bailey’s claim is scientifically incorrect.
‘the elliptical nature of the Earth’s orbit’
An ellipse is a 2D shape. Dr. Bailey’s analysis is 3D. I see the Earth’s path a 3D spiral which includes an extra 5% variation.
Ninderthana,
I hope we are not here for choir practice, perfectly okay to disagree, rip things apart provided it is done sensibly given this is in public.
Tim
Ninderthana says:
July 19, 2012 at 4:49 am
“…The centre-of-mass (COM) between the Earth and the Sun resides about 500 km above the centre of the Sun, along a line joining the Earth and the Sun. The Earth and the Sun move about this COM in such a way that that they are always located on opposite sides of the COM. This means that the variation in distance between the Earth and Sun is zero, not 1.5 million km as claimed by Dr. Bailey…”
I agree. My understanding is that the inner planets orbit the centre of mass of the sun (of course this is effected by the outer planets), and that the outer planets orbit the centre of mass of the solar system. He also seems to think that both gravity and the radiation from the sun vary with the square of the distance, while my understanding is that radiation varies with the cube of distance?
Not sure what this means regarding Dr. Bailey’s conclusions, but if I’m correct, it doesn’t inspire confidence!
Cubic law? Or is this area law, square.
Tenuc says ‘the inner planets orbit the centre of mass of the sun’ ‘and the outer planets orbit the centre of mass of the solar system. ‘
Why would the inner and outer planets behave differently? I think that all planets must orbit the center of mass of the solar system. The Earth does not orbit the sun.
Re posts by Ninderthana/Tenuc/Roger Clague I submit the following, with apologies for where I am saying things which would already be well known to you –
Tenuc – “…….He also seems to think that both gravity and the radiation from the sun vary with the square of the distance, while my understanding is that radiation varies with the cube of distance?”
Kepler
I wonder might you be alluding to Kepler’s third law which states that P² α R³ where P is a planet’s period (time for a full orbit) and R is distance of the semi major axis of the orbit (and applies for elliptical or circular orbit). This is the only formula concerning planetary dynamics which comes to mind which has a cube factor in it. It has nothing to do with radiated energy per se although I suspect a better mathematician than I might be able to derive some sort of remote gravity relationship via planet mass/orbital velocity/orbital period connections. The relationship is a constant for all solar system planets or at least very close to it (although I have learned recently that it does not necessarily apply at the level of galactic orbital dynamics).
Newton made Kepler’s formula the more precise by introducing the mass relationship of planet and Sun and the SIM effect, whereby he recognised that both Sun and planet were orbiting a common centre of mass and this influenced the formula; however he also realised that the ratio of Earth/Sun mass was so dominated by that of the Sun that for all intents and purposes Kepler’s formula sufficed; this would be somewhat less so for Jupiter/Sun and it is Jupiter’s mass (and the Jovians collectively) which has the major effect on the SIM wiggle which the Sun does.
I would add that Newton believed that all the solar system planets orbited the Solar System Barycentre (SSB) and all played their part in influencing the Sun in its SIM; he did not put forward the idea that the rocky planets were locked in orbit around the Sun, rather they together with the Jovians orbited the SSB. Just as you Roger say “……..Why would the inner and outer planets behave differently? I think that all planets must orbit the centre of mass of the solar system.” Newton thought so too.
Once more I am not a good enough mathematician for this but I do believe it can be demonstrated mathematically (which is what Newton did) that it is the case. Intuitively, I cannot see mathematical logic in two separate sets of dynamics applying concurrently and harmoniously. What has intuition got to do with science you may well quite validly ask – well I’ve read enough of Newton to be aware that he sensed it intuitively well before he sat down and developed his mathematical treatise.
Fred Bailey bases his work extensively on Newton, and I am aware he has studied Newton’s work (both original source work as well as that by later scientists who have analysed Newton’s work in depth) in great depth throughout his own lifetime. I am inclined to the view that the reason some people today choose to believe that the inner planets do something different to the outer planets has come about because the extent to which the inners have influence is so tiny that it is insignificant for almost all practical, scientific and aerospace purposes. So it is taken as ‘locked in orbit’ around the Sun, with ellipse distance variation only.
However, what Bailey/Charvátová (and others) are pointing out in their work is that there are circumstances in which this factor is clearly not insignificant – in particular in relation to impact on climate cycles on Earth and no doubt on that of other of the inner planets.
Inverse Square Law
On the question of radiations, I believe there is no question at all that the inverse square law (ISL) applies, be that radiation any of the electromagnetic spectra (Visible Light, IR, UV, etc), gravity, sound, magnetic, particle electrostatics (Coulomb’s Law) and so on. The context in strict terms relates to a point source of radiation emanating out in an expanding spherical manner – it’s the formula for surface area of the sphere (4πr²) that gives rise to the ‘squared’ factor. The ISL was very early recognised and applied from Newton on (and if I recall correctly by some even before Newton). Accordingly I believe Bailey is correct in his application.
By the way – Fred Bailey does not have a doctorate; his credentials are covered on his website. He is a retired Naval Architect with very great expertise in navigation (by the stars or instruments) and a lifetime of study and self learning in advanced mathematics and astrophysics, enhanced with a highly active, analytical and objective set of grey matter neurons up top. Should this raise questions of credibility it might help were we to list several of the highly revered men of science in history who today are admired for their creative work in scientific advancement and who had similar academic origins.
I shall terminate here, but intend to post further later today I hope on the Sun/Earth Orbit and solar system barycentre question.
With best wishes to all
Lawrence
I have read before about the common centre of mass for the solar system and the jovian planet’s effect on this in relation to the centre of the sun. To me, as a complete layman, this implies that planet Earth must, at times, move further from the sun than indicated purely by the earth’s eliptical orbit. And also the Earth must move closer than the orbit indicates. The change in distance seems to be slightly more than one solar diameter. Not exactly a small change!
These periods of ‘extra’ perihelion (don’t know how else to express this) are part of the normal panetary orbital cycles.
I assume these ‘periods’ would be well inside the Milankovitch cycles.
Lawrence A P Wilson said:
I would add that Newton believed that all the solar system planets orbited the Solar System Barycentre (SSB) and all played their part in influencing the Sun in its SIM; he did not put forward the idea that the rocky planets were locked in orbit around the Sun, rather they together with the Jovians orbited the SSB. Just as you Roger say “……..Why would the inner and outer planets behave differently? I think that all planets must orbit the centre of mass of the solar system.” Newton thought so too.
Lawrence,
All of the planets orbit the centre-of-mass of the Solar system – it just that the Sun and the inner rocky (terrestrial) planets orbit as an effective fixed unit (i.e. with their respective fixed separations measured from the centre of the Sun to the centre of the planet). Note that I use the term “effective fixed unit” as there are very small variations from this caused by SIM (Solar Inertial motion about the Barycentre).
The larger masses of the Jovian planets compared to the Terrestrial planets means that
while they keep a fixed distance form the centre of the Sun, both they and the Sun move about a point that is no longer at the centre of the Sun.
Imagine if you lived in a solar system where Jupiter was the only planet moving in a circular orbit about the Sun at 5.2 A.U. Both the Sun and Jupiter would move about a point that is located just above the Sun’s surface i.e. at about 1.08 solar radii from the centre of the Sun. The relatively large mass of Jupiter (~ 318 x Mass of the Earth) effectively increases the distance between Jupiter and the Sun by ~ 0.7 million kilometers above that that would be experienced by a small (low mass) terrestrial planet orbit at the same distance (i.e. 5.2 A.U.).
Also try to imagine if Dr Bailey is correct. If the distance between the Sun and the Earth was influenced by the motion of Sun about the centre-of-mass [primarily] caused the Jovian planets then we would actually be able to measure the change in the Sun’s size caused by this motion (of ~ 1.5 million km towards and away from the Sun).
The Sun diameter is ~ 1.4 million km and its average distance is ~ 150 million km, hence its size is
(1.4/150.0) * (180/3.14159) = 0.53476 degrees of arc = 32.0856 minutes of arc.
If you moved it 1.5 million km closer, when Jupiter and Saturn where on the opposite side of the Sun compared to the Earth, the Sun’s size would increase by:
(1.4/148.5) * (180/3.14159) = 0.540162 degrees of arc = 32.4097 minutes of arc.
As far as I know, no one [that I know of] has shown that the diameter of the Sun increases and decreases by 19.45 arc seconds over the 19.858 year synodic cycle of Jupiter and Saturn.
It is up to Dr. Bailey to show that this is indeed the case.
Ninderthana
I quite agree it would clarify things if sound observational evidence could be established to demonstrate the reality one way or the other. I do not know if there are precision methods that can measure to the degree of accuracy of the 19 arcsecs you have calculated. I did raise this question a couple of years back with a small group of amateur and pro astronomer types – the advice then was that there was not, because we were too close to be able to see or detect such a small shift. I have no real knowledge as to the possibilities. How might it be done?.
You mention that it is up to Fred Bailey to demonstrate his case in this – perhaps so. But not surprisingly, there may be two viewpoints on this. I have frequently found in debates on seemingly uncertain aspects of science it is often the case that proponents on each side of debate propose that is up to their opponents to demonstrate their case. In the end such an approach usually stalls any real progress and becomes semantic.
I think it is beyond question that beginning with Newton’s identifying the SIM phenomena, and then over subsequent centuries through several more most eminent astronomer/astrophysicists it was taken as having been demonstrated by Newton and confirmed (all mathematically) by these successors – most recently by people like Jose, Fairbridge and now Bailey and Ivanka Charvátová, and others too, that all planets primarily orbited the SSB, as did the Sun, and that the planets went about the Sun at continually varying distances – in the case of Earth very infrequently by up to over 2 solar radii and quite regularly up to one solar radius.
I do not know when the ideas you and others put forward that the planets are locked in distance to the Sun’s centre (I have understood from your last post that you are in effect saying all planets and not just the terrestials) were first enumerated. Can you advise when this proposition first appeared, and, on what evidence was it based. Is it a mathematical construct which contradicts Newton and/or is there some sound observational evidence.
As to who should be obliged first to demonstrate sound observational evidence, it seems to me that in terms of valid scientific process this would fall to your side of the debate, having put forward a contrary proposition subsequent to the long accepted and as I have understood it mathematically supported proposition of Newton and successors. But this gets to semantics as I have said.
But if you are convinced such evidence in support of your proposition has already been established then I for one will be very happy to learn of it and evaluate it to the extent that my capabilities permit, and/or put it to other professional astro types with whom I am in dialogue.
About three months or so back I did post on Tallbloke’s blog that I had put the question to four astrophysicists, three of them very senior Professors at top universities on three continents. Without exception or hesitation all four independently confirmed their belief and confidence in the Newton/Fairbridge proposition and as adopted by Bailey/Charvatova too. Their view was that the mathematical evidence was sound – I am personally not able to assess this myself.
Now I know it’s poor form to appeal to authority, but as I’m a very amateur astro type, for myself I have little choice but to seek such guidance – my primary gaol is to learn the reality beyond any theory and based on solid evidence be it mathematical or observational. I am always open to being convinced by sound/superior evidence particularly when endorsed by the professionals – and I do not mean to suggest that you or your colleagues are not in this category.
Lawrence
Lawrence,
I hate to spoil the party but it is very easy observational project to:
a) take out the changes in the Sun’s apparent size due to the elliptical nature of the Earth’s orbit.
b) measure the residual (i.e. remaining) change in the Sun’s apparent size of up to ~ 19 arc seconds that would occur over the 19.858 year synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn, if the Sun’s size was compared from year to year, on a fixed day of the year.
An observation accuracy of ~ 1 arc second in diameter would be easy to achieve if the Sun’s size on a given day was averaged over ~ 100 observations.
Ninderthana – I shall certainly pass on your suggestion to my professional AstroP friends, and give it much more thought myself also.
I guess I was a bit disappointed that you were not able to respond to my question about what evidence there was, be it mathematical or observational, that supported the locked Planets/Sun proposition (LPSP) to which you ascribe, even if only to advise you did not know when it emerged or what it was.
Presumably you do not know, or there is none as yet – if so that suggests the proposition falls into the category of a hypothesis, which may or may not be a reasonable one (I cannot judge), and requires its own supporting evidence. It would stand as a contradictory hypothesis to that of Newton (in the SIM context), and the high credibility recent era contemporaries as previously referenced; that of course does not make it invalid, rather it just calls for sound evidence to support it.
Meantime an amateur such as myself (hopefully reasonably informed, and capable of interpreting and weighing evidence) would have to continue to lean very much on the work and conclusions of Newton and his possibly equally capable and supportive professional successors.
I have appreciated the time you have applied to this sequence of posts (I have assumed you are a Professional in a field of relevant science) and even though we see things differently it is always of value in gaining better understanding of alternative viewpoints and interpretations in science.
With best wishes
Lawrence
Dear Lawrence,
You have obviously devoted a considerable amount time trying to understand this phenomenon. You also appear to be open to new and interesting ideas. I greatly respect anyone with these attributes. Hence, I will do my best to try explain what I believe is the flaw in Dr. Bailey’s claim.
Imagine if we lived in a solar system where the Sun, Jupiter and Earth were the only planets. In this imaginary solar system, Jupiter circles the Sun at a fixed distance of 5.2 A.U.
and the Earth at a fixed distance of 1.0 A.U. i.e. both of the planets are in perfectly circular orbits.
[NB – Elliptical planetary orbits are perturbations upon circular orbits]
As far as the Earth is concerned, in this imaginary solar system, the Sun is by far the dominant gravitational influence upon the Earth. Jupiter’s gravitational effects upon the Earth’s orbit about the Sun is effectively a minuscule perturbation. Hence, the relative motions of the Earth and the Sun can be considered in isolation. In this case, both the Earth and Sun will move about the centre-of-mass (COM) of the Earth-Sun system. This Earth-Sun COM is located about 500 km
above the Sun’s centre on a line joining the centre of the Earth and Sun. The Sun and the Earth will always be on opposite sides of the Earth-Sun COM, so that the measured distance between their respective centres will always be the same.
As far as Jupiter is concerned in this imaginary solar system, the Sun is by far the dominant gravitational influence upon the Jupiter. The Earth’s gravitational effects upon Jupiter’s orbit about the Sun is effectively a minuscule perturbation. Hence, the relative motions of Jupiter and the Sun can be considered in isolation. In this case, both Jupiter and Sun will move about the
centre-of-mass (COM) of the Jupiter-Sun system. This Jupiter-Sun COM is located about 0.7 million km above the Sun’s centre on a line joining the centre of Jupiter and Sun. The Sun and Jupiter will always be on opposite sides of the Jupiter-Sun COM, so that the measured distance between their respective centres will always be the same.
Now, in this imaginary solar system, the information that is given in both of the above two paragraphs must be correct. How is this possible?
The only way this can be the case is if the COM of the Earth-Sun revolves about the COM of the Jupiter-Sun system.
In essence, this forces the Sun to revolve about a new COM which is the combined Jupiter-Earth COM with the Sun. This new COM will, in effect, be located at almost the same position as the COM between Jupiter and the Sun (remember you are dealing with shifts to the COM of 500 km and 0.7 million km, by the Earth and Jupiter, respectively).
Hence, in this imaginary solar system, the Earth and the Sun effectively revolve around the Jupiter-Sun COM, as a fixed unit, and Jupiter also revolves around this same COM.
Hello Ninderthana
You may not be surprised to learn that I have many times rattled precisely that sort of model, with Earth and Jupiter (and then other planets too – bit hard for me to get past three though – I suspect Newton got them all in his), around in my skull seeking to visualise what happens. And I have seen it largely as you describe it.
I’ll outline how I have come to believe it all works in a bit more detail, including going a little beyond the straight line planet/Sun alignments of the models you have described. Firstly, I note we are visualising in your models a circular orbit, and with planets and Sun aligned. Also an important premise for me is that the SSB of this two body or three body ‘solar system’ model, or any such model with multiple planets, is always fixed exactly right on, and proceeding along the galactic path, and does not deviate from it; and it proceeds at a constant velocity – thus all intra solar system forces are balanced.
Accordingly, it is the Sun which is obliged to deviate from the SSB (or the SSCM if you wish) whenever a new gravitational mass and force is introduced into the System, or, if that and other masses change relative positions such as along their orbital paths, also via ellipticity variances, and also any variation in forward or reverse planetary velocity along the galactic path (Kepler stuff). ‘Position’ includes relative position effects given differing orbital periods. All of which means a composite of varying vector forces applying, which always pass through the SSCM where they also always resolve to zero, as the planets orbit through 360 degrees and make their galactic path progress.
Jupiter is the new mass and force arrival to your initial Earth/Sun model, and its gravitational influence causes the Sun to move back from the new SSCM which remains as always on the galactic path – ‘back’ meaning back along that line you described through the centres of J, E and S, to about 700k km from the SSCM to its centre. This applies when this particular line up of planets and Sun is in place but varies plus or minus by that whisker of effect from Earth’s influence depending on relative positions of E and J around the 360 degrees of planetary orbit.
The new SSCM is a composite of that of Earth/Sun and Jupiter/Sun, but in effect close enough to that of Jupiter/Sun only as the influence of Earth is minute by comparison. The movement by the Sun is what Newton recognised, and which his successors, in particular Jose, dubbed Solar Inertial Motion (SIM) and described it in much detail. In moving back (or in any direction in three dimensions) the Sun is rebalancing all the planetary vector forces which apart from Jupiter’s may be on either side of the SSCM – a three dimensional seesaw effect.
Meantime in the two planet model, Jupiter and Earth orbit the new SSCM as does the Sun – as you say, the Sun and Jupiter must always be on opposite sides of the SSCM (but not so the other planets). When compared with the Earth/Sun only model, in the Jupiter/Earth/Sun two planet model the distance between Earth and Sun centre has been increased by about 700k km.
If the model is extended to bring in all the other planets their effects add to or subtract from that 700k km depending on their relative positions in relation mainly to Jupiter and can be as much as 2.13 times the Sun’s radius on those very infrequent occasions when all the other major planets, but particularly Saturn, are aligned in conjunction with it opposite the Sun – I have read this sort of line up is only about once every 5 million years or so.
So the distance between Earth and Sun is varying all the time because of these dynamics.
That is the animated picture in my mind. I wonder how does that compare with your image. Critique welcomed as and when you have the time.
Lawrence
Ninderthana accepts that Jupiter affects the Sun but also says ‘Jupiter’s gravitational effects upon the Earth’s orbit about the Sun are effectively a minuscule perturbation.’
The Earth is much less massive than the Sun and sometimes closer to Jupiter than the Sun so its orbit must be significantly affected by Jupiter.
I agree with Lawrence Wilson that Earth orbits the SSCM not the Sun.
Roger Clague said:
“Why would the inner and outer planets behave differently? I think that all planets must orbit the center of mass of the solar system. The Earth does not orbit the sun.”
I quite agree, why? how? could the law of gravity be applied differently to each group of planets/sun, it’s mathematically impossible, Newton realised this.
Fred Bailey’s Solar Chord Science is based upon this. For the purposes of calculating the mechanism that controls sun spot production and the varying Earth to Sun Chord length, technically speaking, the solar system is treated as an Isolated, Newtonian frame of reference that is, Inertial (has momentum) but Non-accelerating (constant velocity) moving in a straight line (almost) along the Galactic orbit.
This means that the COM (Centre of Mass) of the whole system is moving at a constant velocity in a straight line with every particle possessing a spiral orbit about that point. Those particles behind the COM experience constant acceleration toward it and are perfectly balanced in terms of total energy, by the particles in front of the COM that are experiencing deceleration keeping the whole system in balance, the law of conservation of energy at work. So every body experiences in its very stretched out spiral orbit about the COM a constant rate of change of linear and angular momentum in perfect balance.
For the purposes of SCS we only need to consider the Sun, Earth and the four Jovians as everything else makes little difference to the outcomes of the calculations.
The Sun’s orbit about the COM is unique but also cyclical in nature, due principally to the orbital characteristics of the four Jovians.
Bailey realised that the AU is actually the average distance of the Earth from the COM, so that The correct average distance of the Earth to the Sun (The Solar Chord Length) is, the AU plus the average distance of the Sun from the COM.
The Sun has an average orbital period of about 10 years, this is why many proxies, e.g. Varves, and Oceanic currents, El Nino etc. display decadal and bi-decadal patterns.
Why do TSI measurements not show this decadal pattern? The raw data can only be a true representation of the changing Earth to Sun distance, assuming the instruments are accurate, but, the ‘Normalisation’ formula used to manipulate the data, assumes that the distance is only the AU thereby suppressing the additional solar forcing of the Sun’s orbit about the COM. This has the affect of flattening the peaks and raising the troughs in wattage graphs.
Question: Given the earth is in high speed movement in orbit, what is the actual path of the moon through space?
What does orbit mean?
Howard Bailey says:
This means that the COM (Centre of Mass) of the whole system is moving at a constant velocity in a straight line with every particle possessing a spiral orbit about that point.
Ninderthana says:
This is true. However it is possible for the Earth to move at a fixed (if you remove variations due to the Earth’s elliptical orbit about the Sun) distance from the Sun, while at the same time both (i.e. the Earth and the Sun) move about the COM of the Solar system.
Howard,
Simply stating something and then appealing to authority (i.e. Sir Isaac Newton), does not make something right.
If you and Sir Isaac Newton are correct, you should be able to present observations of the Sun’s diameter by comparing its size from one day of the year to the next that show a variation of ~ 19 arc second in size over a period of 9.9 years. If you can do this, you will win the argument. [N.B. the apparent size of the Sun must be corrected for the elliptical nature of the Earth’s orbit]
Logic tells me that you will not see variation in the Sun’s size.
A few observations here –
Re tchannon – “what is an orbit” – I guess it’s a matter of definition but to me it is the path around the most central point for the path (be it circle, or semi major axis factored for elliptical) so in N’s E/S model it is the COM of the two, which as stated is a mere 500km from the Sun’s centre (we assume Sun and planets are all perfect spheres for this stuff) – so it’s the centre point for both E and S.
In N’s model 2 with E/J/S as he states it there are two COMs – J orbits one and E orbits the other whilst the Sun, which under model 1 orbited the E/S COM, somehow now orbits the J/S COM but does it also orbit the E/S COM, or is the former E/S COM now in some way obsolete, or in some way it gets left behind near the J/S COM but Earth ignores it. All this seems quite illogical to me and is one reason why I struggle with N’s ideas.
Although I agree it is not science as such to rest on Authority, the fact is all scientists do so and quote references extensively in support of their own work – in fact if they don’t so quote their work can get marked down as a result. In the case of this debate I rest heavily not only on Newton (who after all was and still is regarded as a genius) but also on many scientists who have come after him and have independently and objectively explored his mathematics on this matter and agreed with him. So as non-scientist this aggregate of intense study by many renowned scientists must carry a lot of weight. I only wish I had the skills in mathematics to verify it all myself.
And one would hope that others like N et al who follow the other line might lay out the mathematics that show Newton et all were wrong and they are right. But as N has suggested, and I agree, there is nothing like a robust set of observational science and measurement to back up, or, raise questions about a long established line of science. And his suggestion about measuring the Sun’s apparent size is a good one. I certainly intend to take this up first opportunity with the astroPs at Swinburne to see has it been done or could it be undertaken – maybe a good undergraduate project.
At the same time, under N’s hypothesis if it were true then we would also see the Earth (and the other terrestials which he says act likewise) doing their very own very merry SIM dance around their orbital paths – since they are with N’s model locked to the Sun. This too should be able to be observed as it would be a very sharp set of rapid movements away from an otherwise smooth path.
We should remember too that the actual path of Earth (and each planet) is not strictly around a two dimensional plane orbit – that is only a vastly simplified construct which does not exist except as a freeze frame reference image – in reality each planet is winding along a helical path as it circulate around a COM, and the Sun does too – that’s because the whole system is moving along the galactic path at 250km a second.
As to the moon tchannon – it is doing its own helical and COM bumpy wobble and wind about the Earth, and if N’s hypothesis were found to be right, it would be having one hell of a wild ride on its helical path whilst that path in turn got thrown around the Earths helical wind concurrently. So it’s a helix on a helix and a COM wobble I think. Again nothing like this for Earth or moon, or for any other planet has ever been discovered or if it has I missed it.
The plot thickens – Lawrence
I believe that this should end the argument.
If you down load the following .pdf file:
Click to access historical_measurements.pdf
you will find:
on page 5:
“On physical grounds, temporal variability of the solar diameter cannot exceed 10 mas peak to peak in amplitude.”
on page 6:
“…solar astrolabes, distributed around the Earth (in France, Chile, Brazil and Turkey), are still measuring a diameter variability of about 100 mas, sometimes more. A recent careful analysis,
based on a statistical variographic analysis (Badache, 2005) showed that measurements
made by astrolabes reflect, without any ambiguity, the fluctuations of the upper Earth atmosphere, i.e. the stratosphere; and not, as it is often claimed, the fluctuations of the atmosphere (the turbulence).”
and on page 8:
“On time scales of the order of months, the variability [of the Sun’s diameter] is upper bounded by some 10 mas,…”
This paper tells us that measured variations in the Sun’s apparent diameter rarely exceed 100 milli arc seconds = 0.1 arc seconds [I assume that this means once corrections are made for the elliptical shape of the Earth’s orbit]. This limit in the Sun’s diameter is set by variations in the Earth’s Stratosphere.
This falls far short of the 19 arc seconds needed to support the claims of Dr. Bailey.
Q.E.D.
Even the Creationists who have a “vested interest” in a shrinking solar diameter, only claim a change of ~ 0.8 arc seconds – which stills falls way short of the 19 arc seconds needed to support the ideas of Dr. Bailey.
“Thus we can conclude that a thorough analysis of all the available evidence clearly suggests a steady long-term decrease of the solar diameter (i.e. the sun is shrinking) at a rate of almost 0.2 second of arc (150 kilometers or 93 miles) per century or approximately 30 centimeters (less than one foot) per hour, superimposed upon a 76–80 year cycle of systematic increase and decrease over a range of 0.8 second of arc (600 km or 373 miles).”
Reference: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v11/n2/sun
And the final coup de grace:
If you look at figure 2 of
Click to access sloar_diam_caonst.pdf
[based on Laclare, F., Delmas, C., Coin, J.P. and Irbah, A., Measurements and Variations of the Solar Diameter, Solar Physics 166, 211–229 (1996).]
You will notice that the measurements of the apparent diameter of the Sun [measured in arc seconds] show that its diameter only changes by ~ 0.4 arc seconds (peak-to-peak) between 1987 and 1998.
Again, this is way short of the 19 arc seconds required by the theories of Dr. Bailey.
You might want to look at figure 6 on page 336 of this paper as well.
ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/margit/papers/ThuillierSabHab2005ASpR.pdf
It confirms that bi-monthly observations with an astrolabe at Greenwich only show
a variation in the Sun’s apparent diameter ~ 0.4 arc seconds.
This paper points out the difficulties and limitations that are associated with
each of the methods used to determine the Sun’s diameter.
And if you believe the continuum measurements made by MIDI aboard SOHO – the variations in the solar diameter could be as small as 15 mas = 0.015 (arc seconds) per year.
“However, MDI instrument also recorded images in the photospheric continuum which can be used to derive the solar diameter and its variations. The measurements gathered since 1995 show a variation of the solar diameter in which important instrumental effects exist. After instrumental corrections, the secular variation would be lower than 15 mas per year (Emilio et al., 2000; Kuhn et al., 2004). A detailed study of the results obtained by the various methods of measurement of diameter was carried out by Thuillier et al. (2005).”
http://smsc.cnes.fr/PICARD/GP_science.htm
http://smsc.cnes.fr/PICARD/lien2_scie.htm
Let’s assume the Earth- Sun distance stays constant. The Sun orbits the SSCM. So the Earth path includes the motion of the Sun about the SSCM.
Thus the Sun and the Earth are both simultaneously affected by the large outer planets. Climate change and Sun spots linked because they are both caused by the outer gas giant planets.
Wow – now there’s a little package of light reading and re-reading for me – I’d better get to work – I suspect it will take me a little while to absorb all that and maybe brush up on a few supporting itmes to assist me
Lawrence
Roger Clague says:
“Let’s assume the Earth- Sun distance stays constant. The Sun orbits the SSCM. So the Earth path includes the motion of the Sun about the SSCM.
Thus the Sun and the Earth are both simultaneously affected by the large outer planets. Climate change and Sun spots linked because they are both caused by the outer gas giant planets.”
Ninderthana says:
Roger,
You have almost got it right!!
The gravity of the outer gas giants are responsible for:
a) locking the Terrestrial planets in near-resonant orbital distance and periods.
b) modulating solar activity, when coupled with the tidal influences of Venus and Earth on the outer convective layers of the sun (specifically the Tachocline).
c) setting the shape, tilt and precession of the Lunar orbit (via historical orbital resonances). This means that the effect of long-term lunar tidal variations in the Earth’s upper troposphere appear to be synchronized with long-term changes in the level of solar activity.
Hence, while there is a likely to be a direct link between the level of solar activity and long-term (decadal to centennial) changes in the Earth’s climate, this direct link is amplified by the fact that long-term lunar tidal variations in the Earth’s upper troposphere also affect the Earth climate.
Thus, the likely sequence of events are:
Gravity of Jovian planets ==> tilt, shape & precession of lunar orbit ==> synchronization of variations in lunar atmospheric tides & variations in level of solar activity ==> Earth’s climate
Gravity of Jovian planets ==> periods and distances of Terrestrial Planets ==> modulation of the levels of solar activity on the Sun via the gravity of Jovian planets (mostly Jupiter) and the tides of the Terrestrial planets acting through a spin-orbit coupling mechanism ==> producing what appears to be a synchronization between the Solar Inertial Motion (SIM) about the SSCM and the level of activity on the Sun [which are in fact not directly linked].
It’s an alternative model that just might work!
A supporting set of references to my post immediately above:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2010/03/synchronization-between-solar-inertial.html
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/my-2008-paper-outlining-planetary-lunar.html
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/world-mean-temperature-warmscools.html
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/do-periodic-peaks-in-planetary-tidal.html
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/planetary-spin-orbit-coupling-model-for.html
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/why-does-solar-cycle-keep-re.html
Ninderthana said:
“This paper tells us that measured variations in the Sun’s apparent diameter rarely exceed 100 milli arc seconds = 0.1 arc seconds [I assume that this means once corrections are made for the elliptical shape of the Earth’s orbit]. This limit in the Sun’s diameter is set by variations in the Earth’s Stratosphere.”
I do not have the expertise or time to make an extensive study of this aspect but I can immediately see several problems with this argument, one, what is the estimated margin of error in these difficult observations/calculations but more importantly; two, Re. “I assume that this means once corrections are made for the elliptical shape of the Earth’s orbit”, this assumes that Earth is orbiting the COM of the Sun and the AU is a valid ‘correction” in this scenario, but, if in fact the Earth orbits the Solar System COM and the Sun also, then the use of the AU in the ‘correction’ will give a completely wrong answer.
“
Ninderthana said;
“Howard Bailey says:
This means that the COM (Centre of Mass) of the whole system is moving at a constant velocity in a straight line with every particle possessing a spiral orbit about that point.
Ninderthana says:
This is true. However it is possible for the Earth to move at a fixed (if you remove variations due to the Earth’s elliptical orbit about the Sun) distance from the Sun, while at the same time both (i.e. the Earth and the Sun) move about the COM of the Solar system.”
This is not true. You can not isolate two bodies from the ‘group’ and treat them as separate entities in a gravitational sense. Why do I say this?
To fully understand the motions of the whole system one needs to be aware of other factors, let me explain;
The following is a list of the number of known moons possessed by each planet (this may not be up to date, I just Googled it);
Mercury – none
Venus – none
Earth – 1
Mars – 2
Jupiter – about 67 (often, more discovered with each satellite pass)
Saturn – 60 identified (plus 3 unconfirmed)
Uranus – 27
Neptune – 13
Pluto – 3
Every planet with two or more moons is in effect a ‘mini’ solar system, or ‘group’ if you like, take Neptune for instance, Neptune and its 13 planets orbit their group COM and you cannot say for instance, that the inner 6 moons orbit the COM of Neptune and the outer 7 moons orbit the COM of the whole group or any other similar combination, Why not you ask?
Each planet literally possesses a gravitational sphere of influence over its smaller orbiting moons, this sphere is called the Roche or Hill sphere (Google this for in depth info) and the radius is determined by the mass of the planet. So that any object that has been ‘captured’ within this sphere will remain in orbit about that planet and can only reach ‘escape’ velocity if the object receives additional energy e.g. a rocket booster fired in the direction of the line of flight of the object or, crashes into the planet, if the object loses energy e.g. the rocket is fired in the opposite direction to the line of flight or, the object collides with say small amounts of air particles that gradually slow it down, there are other possible causes.
[ [moderator writes, try this Physics Forum thread where information is finally prised out of a withholder http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=197797 ]
At the boundary between the planet’s Hill sphere in any given direction and the interaction with an adjacent Hill sphere of another planet, there is a small region where the two gravitational influences cancel out, if any object possesses enough momentum to ‘coast’ through this region into the next, it will be ‘captured’ by that planet, but if the object does not posses enough momentum, it will remain in this region, stranded. These regions are called Lagrangian points.
Which body has the largest Hill sphere? Of course it’s the Sun and due to its mass, it extends to about 1.25 light years, well beyond Pluto, so encompasses all the bodies in the SS, therefore you can not say the Sun’s gravitational influence only applies to the inner planets but not the outer Jovians.
Previously I stated;
“For the purposes of SCS we only need to consider the Sun, Earth and the four Jovians as everything else makes little difference to the outcomes of the calculations.
The Sun’s orbit about the COM is unique but also cyclical in nature, due principally to the orbital characteristics of the four Jovians.”
If you take just the Jovians and the Sun, you can fairly easily calculate the relative position of the Sun in relation to the group COM at any instant in time. How? You calculate the COM of the Jovians, this point represents a single phantom planet that has the same influence over the Sun as the four Jovians. Now it’s easy to determine the position of the Sun, because in any two body system, each body is directly opposite the other across the two group COM. How far apart? The Sun’s mass is about 799 times more than the combined total of the Jovians (or the Phantom planet).
Now draw a straight line passing through the COM of the Sun and the Phantom planet, the COM of the group lies somewhere in between the two bodies along that line, Where?
In direct proportion to their masses. So if the Phantom COM is calculated to be say 799 km from the COM of the group, then the Sun is on the opposite side 1, 799th of that distance i.e. 1 km. The COM of a group of bodies is also known as the Barycentre.
Now consider what would happen to this group if we added another Jupiter sized planet, the whole configuration would alter. What if instead we add a very small object say an Asteroid? Not much, you can ignore it.
So, if the addition is now a very special but still relatively small body i.e. the Earth, then again it makes very little difference.
This is why you can not say that the inner planets orbit the Sun and they and the Jovians orbit the SS COM.
Earth orbits Sun, which orbits solar system center of mass (SSCM)
Earth orbits SSCM and Sun orbits the SSCM.
Do they not both produce the same path for the Earth and so the same Earth-Sun distance?
It seems Ninderthana’s evidence assumes the Earth orbits the Sun.
Roger – here’s how I would respond to your questions; and this is before I’ve had any time to study all the documents N (Ninderthana) provided links to, or to think about HB’s response about the AU measurement anomaly.
Firstly assuming the limited solar system models as exampled by N a few posts back, ie, Model 1 with Earth and Sun only, and Model 2 with Jupiter, Earth and Sun. In Model 1 Earth and Sun orbit their common COM which is just 500km from the Sun’s centre. Insignificant really, but nonetheless Earth is still 500km further from the Sun’s centre and therefore from its surface.
For Model 2 with Jupiter now on the scene, its major gravitational effect is to shift the Sun so that the new common COM (common for E, J and S) is now a very significant 700k km from the Sun’s centre, and therefore from the Sun’s surface. All of E, J, and S orbit this COM according to my Newtonian based hypothesis.
However, if N’s hypothesis holds, then somehow only Jupiter and the Sun orbit this COM but the Earth is ‘locked’ to the Sun and orbits the centre of the Sun or perhaps the 500km separated point distance away from the centre – and I have no idea which of these two options it would orbit. But if it in fact orbits the Sun’s centre then I am left confused as to what became of Earth’s gravitational influence of the 500km – surely it must still be around somewhere, so where is it and what’s it doing.
As I’ve suggested also earlier, this model must mean that Earth is following the Sun’s SIM path and is therefore wobbling around its otherwise stable/smooth orbit path. Why has this not been observed and reported. As this hypothesis, it is proposed, also applies to the other terrestials, M, V and M, then they too are doing a similar SIM dance (locked to the Sun) around their respective orbits. Even if it is not possible in some way to observe the Earth’s SIM mimic because we are on it (although plenty of satellites are well away from it) then surely it is possible to observe this SIM occurring on M, V and M. But satellites well away ought to able to record it for Earth – shouldn’t they ?
I would also pose this question – if Earth is ‘locked’ to the Sun, then how is it the Earth continues to (presently) follow an elliptic shaped orbit path – surely ‘locked’ means locked. My understanding is that it is the gravitational influence of the other planets, each one upon the other, that causes ellipticity in planetary orbit. But if the Sun has captured and ‘locked’ Earth to it how does it allow the other planets to so influence – surely the gravity of S is just too much to allow this. One solution, is that E is not so locked, and together with all the other planets and the Sun, being in freefall state can move to wherever they ‘wish’ influenced only by the various gravitational effects of one another from instant to instant.
It seems to me that as soon as you depart from the basic Newtonian conditions then you must answer all of these questions in proposing an alternative hypothesis which immediately raises these questions.
The second part of my response returns to the real life Model, ie, the Solar System as we know it with all of the planets present and in orbit. The effect in terms of distance between Earth and Sun is somewhat similar as in the preceding except that where only one additional planet, Jupiter, was present we now have all the others too.
This means that, where with Jupiter only, the COM was pretty much fixed at 700k km from the Sun’s centre (ignoring the ‘lost’ 500km for the moment), so still largely a two body system, now we have all the other planets (but essentially the large mass gaseous lot) substantially influencing, via their respective masses and orbital positional variations, the location of the aggregate COM – in consequence from instant to instant this COM is surprisingly rapidly moving around the Sun’s centre, sometimes pretty much right on that centre, and at other times a long way away, as far as 2.13 times the Sun’s radius from its centre.
That moving COM obliges the Sun to move position around the fixed galactic path, and so to proceed perpetually on its very merry SIM ‘wobble’. In this way the Sun ‘counterbalances’ the collective movements of the planets and their ever changing vector forces.
So, in the full solar system Model, with the Newtonian/Fairbridge et al proposition, where all planets do their own thing under the gravitational influences of all other SS objects, the Earth is perpetually changing distance from the Sun’s centre. However if you subscribe to the Earth/Sun locked proposition then Earth is continuously fixed in its distance around the Sun’s centre with or without a 500km variance – and the consequential questions as above then arise.
Lawrence
One thing I phrased incorrectly in the previous post re –
“…… in consequence from instant to instant this COM is surprisingly rapidly moving around the Sun’s centre, sometimes pretty much right on that centre, and at other times a long way away, as far as 2.13 times the Sun’s radius from its centre. ”
I should have said the Sun’s centre is moving around the COM which is fixed on the galactic path line. That is the SIM of our Star – exactly as is observed in other distant stars and which indicates the presence of exoplanetary masses which cause it in the same way.
L