ANYONE LOOKING FOR THE EU SEED LAW PETITION CAN FIND IT HERE
H/T to ‘Oldbrew’ for spotting this article at PhysOrg. It’s so badly written, I’m only including the (non-attributed) quote from one of the scientists involved, and the abstract from the paper, which is available in full here.
Velocity map of the extended solar neighbourhood as seen by RAVE. Shown is a slice cut perpendicular to the plane of the Milky Way through the position of the Sun. Arrows indicate the streaming motions of the stars, the colour indicates the velocity perpendicular to the plane of the Milky Way. Credit: AIP
The 3D movement patterns obtained showed highly complex structures. The aim was then to untangle these structures, concentrating on differences between the north and south of the Galactic plane. From these velocities it was seen that our Galaxy has a lot more going on than previously thought. The velocities going upwards and downwards show that there is a wave-like behaviour, with stars sloshing in and out. The novel element in our approach was true 3D observation, showing how complex the velocity landscape of the Galaxy really is. Modellers now have the challenge of understanding this behaviour, be it from ripples from an eaten galaxy or the wake from spiral arms. These new findings will make it possible to make 3D models of our Galaxy much more precise.
The wobbly Galaxy: kinematics north and south with RAVE red clump giants
M. E. K. Williams, M. Steinmetz, J. Binney, A. Siebert, H. Enke, B. Famaey, I. Minchev, R. de Jong, C. Boeche, K. C. Freeman, O. Bienayme, J. Bland-Hawthorn, B. K. Gibson, G. F. Gilmore, A. Helmi, G. Kordopatis, U. Munari, J. F. Navarro, Q. A. Parker, W. Reid, G. M. Seabroke, S. Sharma, A. Siviero, F. G. Watson, R. F. G. Wyse, T. Zwitter
(Submitted on 11 Feb 2013 (v1), last revised 17 Sep 2013 (this version, v2))
Abstract
The RAVE survey, combined with proper motions and distance estimates, can be used to study in detail stellar kinematics in the extended solar neighbourhood (solar suburb). Using the red clump, we examine the mean velocity components in 3D between an R of 6 and 10 kpc and a Z of -2 to 2 kpc, concentrating on North-South differences. Simple parametric fits to the R, Z trends for VPHI and the velocity dispersions are presented. We confirm the recently discovered gradient in mean Galactocentric radial velocity, VR, finding that the gradient is more marked below the plane, with a Z gradient also present. The vertical velocity, VZ, also shows clear structure, with indications of a rarefaction-compression pattern, suggestive of wave-like behaviour. We perform a rigorous error analysis, tracing sources of both systematic and random errors. We confirm the North-South differences in VR and VZ along the line-of-sight, with the VR estimated independent of the proper motions. The complex three-dimensional structure of velocity space presents challenges for future modelling of the Galactic disk, with the Galactic bar, spiral arms and excitation of wave-like structures all probably playing a role.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
To pursue the vortex concept, try this. Warning: it’s more than a bit ‘wordy’.
http://www.uvs-model.com/index.htm
We live in a twisted (twisting) galaxy!
A vortex implies things are getting transported by the vortex. And a vortex requires an energy source to drive it. If this claim regarding a vortex holds up, things are going to really fall through the looking glass.
Animation of Jupiter vortices including the contra-rotating bands here:
http://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20vortices%20of%20Jupiter.htm
OB: Good spot. A few pages on that site look quite relevant to our solar system local interests.
http://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20Solar%20system%20formation.htm
http://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20sunspot.htm
TB: yes. Another way of looking at Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions here.
http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20push-in%20gravity.htm#conjunction
OB: The author is a bit hazy on this. In effect, you have a gravity bound inertial system (because it spins). So you have gravity pulling inwards, and ‘centrifugal forces’ throwing things outwards. The problem with his description is that his consideration of the superior and inferior conjunctions is static, whereas his consideration of the barycentric motion is dynamic. Einstein doesn’t help us here, and so we have to consider the inertial forces to which the Sun is subjected as it swings around the solar system barycentre, and how those forces are balanced as Saturn and Jupiter move from conjunction to opposition.
The analogy I find most useful is that of the hammer thrower on the sports field. Suppose he whirls two hammers, one in each hand. We’ll ignore tangles, pretend they don’t happen. The one on the shorter chain, spinning once every 1.186 seconds (Jupiter) passes the one on the longer chain spinning once every 2.946 seconds (Saturn), every 1.986 seconds. As they come into line, the hammer thrower has to lean back to counteract their combined mass and centrifugal force trying to pull him out of the throwing circle. When they are opposite each other 0.993 seconds later, the forces are more equal and he stands straighter to keep his balance.
Although the barycentre of the three body system changed position, at no time did either of the chains get any longer or shorter. This is because, contrary to the author’s diagram, as the Sun retreated from the barycentre, the planets followed it. They have to, because the Sun’s gravity doesn’t change just because the distance to the barycentre does, and neither does the planets angular velocities (assuming circular orbits for simplicity). However, the planets do interact gravitationally. Since Jupiter is the big boy, as they come to conjunction, Saturn is tugged inwards towards Jupiter more than Jupiter is tugged outwards towards Saturn.
Now that does put a wobble on the system, and as the successive meetings are always at different points in Jupiter’s eccentric orbit, the strength of the tug and therefore the degree of wobble changes too.
TB: ‘assuming circular orbits for simplicity’
I had the impression the author was claiming elliptical orbits were an illusion caused by the variation of the Sun’s movement round the barycentre. In other words (he says) from the Sun’s point of view the planetary orbits ARE circular, at least for those in the ecliptic plane?
Have a look at Jupiter’s orbital eccentricity. I think you’ll find it’s a lot more than a sun diameter, which is around the max extent of Sun-Barycentre relative motion.
I misquoted his idea. Here it is:
‘From the UVS perspective, planets are perpetually spiraling toward the center of the Solar System that is perpetually moving away with vortical motion in its helical path in the galactic reference frame, this renders the phenomenon of planetary orbits with apsidal and elliptical motions that are precessing in the localized reference frame of a static Sun.’
Not sure whether that’s compatible with what you said or not.
The word ‘obsolete’ or similar seems to be missing from the end of the second half of the sentence. As for “planets perpetually spiraling toward the center of the Solar System that is perpetually moving away with vortical motion in its helical path in the galactic reference frame”: No. Their motion is more or less helical, because their orbital motion throws them outwards with as much force as the Sun drags them inwards. If the author wants to do away with gravity, then there’s lots more work to do first… Maybe something is being lost in translation here.
And I have to say this:
“UVS qualitatively predicts that the Maunder Minimum is caused by the Jupiter-BOTSS-Saturn superior conjunction with all other planets to push-in the Sun nearest to the barycenter.”
Is cobblers. He hasn’t done his homework here. It’s the chaotic nature of the motion rather than it’s velocity that affects solar activity IMO.
Nice video animation of solar system helical motion here by the way
Charvatova said:
“It is important to note, that the periods of chaotic motion coincide with the long-term minima in solar activity such as the Wolf Minimum (1270-1350), Spörer Minimum (~1430-1520), Maunder Minimum (~1620-1710) or Dalton Minimum (~1790-1840). During the trefoil periods the ST-phenomena are stable – the sunspot cycles are 10 years long, volcanic activity is muted and in the middle of the trefoil period there is a temperature maximum down here on Earth.”
http://www.klimaskeptik.cz/news/interview-with-dr-ivanka-charvatova-csc-from-gfu/
Is that what you mean?
Pretty much, yes. I think there’s a bit of a lag after the start of the ordered trefoil motion before the temperature maximum, and likewise a lag after it ends before things cool down. Geoff Sharp says there’s no lag.
[…] https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/milky-way-turns-out-to-be-a-vortex-challenges-ahead-for-as… […]
In a vortex spin is in the same direction. The figure show the arrows on at the top are pointing to the right and the arrows on the bottom are pointing to the right. Seems not everyone is on board with the vortex idea in the figure.
I read “stars sloshing in and out” (z) and of course this occurs. And you can put many different words to conceptualize or describe what these appear to look like to a casual observer.
If those reading here have never come across this site http://orca.phys.uvic.ca/~tatum/ , try it and go to Chapter 5 (.PDF) first under Celestial Mechanics, then branch out if you want more details. it’s a great set of summaries on the physics and mechanics involved. I have read his entire set of material many times and have programmed many examples to visualize to myself what is included in his texts. There are various ways bodies or groups of bodies react to different locations in relation to different geometric shapes of mass densities. Like shells, spheres, planes, rings, cylinders and our galaxy is composed of all of these effects at various scales simultaneously. Some are quite non-intuitive how gravity appears on the surface.
For example the Milky Way is first and primarily a planar group of mass with varying densities inward toward the center unlike globular galaxies. But, our galaxy is not perfectly flat either and gravitation perpendicular to that plane gives aspects of mass points above and below that disk. The arms on a smaller scale are as cylinder segments and gravity about those follow different equations. Since it is not flat it also as a squished cylinder, different equations for that effect. Is it much like a fractal putting all of these together at all scales, sure seems so to me anytime I look at movements within galaxies.
So is it any surprise our galaxy ‘flutters’ harmonically in the north-south z direction and you can see the velocities shown in their visualization, not really. It is all about gravity.
If I remember correctly what I’ve read over the years the large and small Magellanic clouds are left over lumps of a small galaxy the milky way gravitationally tore apart, and already ingested a section, and is in the process of pulling in the other two clumps. The result of on going clump ingestion of incoming stellar matter into the electromagnetically dancing star heliopauses, with different radial and vertical speeds and trajectories. The electromagnetic fields suspending the turbulent mixing by mutual static repulsion, as the outer most layer of the heliosphere is almost all free electrons only.
So the flopping and sloshing around in the bowl of gravitational energy binding it all into shape that follows the dynamics required for the interstellar self repulsion to limit collisions between stars, with energy transferred ahead of the incoming stars as a pressure wave of magnetic fluxes all pushing on each other like a school of jelly fish.
What I am waiting for is the progress in the 3D mapping field to get to the point where we can visualize the closest couple hundred stars and watch the simulation of their separate proper motions to each other, as time passes from their movement projections from the past into the future.
I am very curious to see where we are in respect to;
a.Newly arrived incoming stars.
b.Fields of stars moving more or less together.
c.How much of the movement seems Brownian/random.
d.spiral arms composed of magnetic waves moving through slower stars, or
e.density waves of the frontal movement of new star formations, because of, or triggered by the collapse of magnetically susceptible material on the leading edge of the magnetic wave front.
Hello people,
Just found this website today. I am elated to see that there are others here discussing about UVS too! The empirical evidence that showed that our Galaxy is a vortex, is linked to the Solar System being a vortex too, where the Sun has already been proven to not be the centre of our Solar System. Instead, an entity known as the MRC (Magnetic Ring Center) is the BOTSS (Barycentre of the Solar System).
Relating to the existence of MRC, I invite readers to view the UVS perspective on comets here:
http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20gas%20and%20dust%20tails%20of%20comet.htm
As you read on about that perspective, one of the main things you should note is this:
“UVS qualitatively predicts that the gas tail of the comet points directly to the dual-core barycenter of the solar system.”
And as already listed down on that same site, there is the empirical evidence via NASA’s SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) satellite of comets’ gas tail Not pointing directly away from the Sun. But rather, pointing directly at MRC/BOTSS. This empirical evidence counters the long-held mainstream science belief that the gas tail of comets’ points directly away from the Sun due to the solar wind emanating from the Sun.
I went to personally look up on such footages. Asides from youtube, NASA’s SOHO website does have an archive of such footage too that is accessible to the public. Asides from the comets already listed there such as Machholz and NEAT, I found out there too are others, such as comet C/2002 X5 Kudo-Fujikawa, that follow the aforementioned UVS qualitative prediction and indeed prove that the MRC exists. As well as proof that the Sun is not the centre of our Solar System as we all (including I) used to believe.
Cheers!
GD: Welcome. Jut as a point of information, the BOTSS or SSB as we usually call it in our discussions, moves around between around -0.07 and +2.2 solar radii from the centre of the Sun. So observationally, it won’t be very easy to differentiate between a comet tail being in a radial line from the SSB or solar core.
Another thing to consider is the Yarkov effect on the small spinning particles forming the cometary tail. Obviously, the longer the particle has been separated from the comet, the more time the effect has to operate:
Hello tallbloke,
Until you mentioned it, I was unaware of the Yarkovsky effect. So please forgive my lack of knowledge on that aforementioned effect to reply to your previous post’s 2nd paragraph. 🙂
Based on what I know of UVS, I have to say that BOTSS (MRC) does not move between around -0.07 and +2.2 solar radii. For example, look at the observational footage of comet C/2002 V1 NEAT via SOHO:
And compare this footage with its NASA JPL Orbital diagram at the dates of closest approach to the Sun including its perihelion:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=c%2F2002%20v1;orb=1;cov=0;log=0;cad=0#orb
And also, comet C/1996 B2 Hyakutake:
And compare Hyakutake’s footage with its own NASA JPL Orbital diagram at the dates of its own near-Sun approach including its perihelion:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=c%2F1996%20b2;orb=1;cov=0;log=0;cad=0#orb
You can evidently see that the direction and angle at which the aforementioned comets’ gas tail points at, indicate BOTSS was >2.2 solar radii from the Sun. And also that BOTSS does not remain at exactly the same angle as our Solar System’s invariable plane all the time.
Comet 96P/Machholz’s 2002 perihelion approach showed that there is no radial line difficulty between BOTSS and solar core that you have mentioned:
^The direction and angle of which Machholz’s gas tail pointed at as seen in the 2002 perihelion approach, was undeniably distinguishable.
GD: Thanks for the nice comet clips.
The barycentre of the solar system’s position is not up for negotiation or interpretation. NASA JPL’s ephemeris gives its position relative to the solar centre to high accuracy. Its range is as I gave it in my previous response. It does indeed also move in the z axis, by around a tenth of the x-y plane variation.
I don’t know how the the UVS author calculates the size or position of the ‘magnetic ring’ or from what data, so I can’t comment on that. Can you link the page on the site with the relevant calcs or references?
Cheers – TB
Hi once again tallbloke,
I scanned the author’s UVS site again and found no such calculations. Me being curious, I think he determines the position of BOTSS based on:
– The positions of Sun, Jupiter and Saturn (SJS). As well as their SJS inferior and superior conjunctions. BOTSS is inside the Sun during SJS superior conjunctions, and far out from the Sun during SJS inferior conjunctions.
– The solar cycle. For example during solar cycle 23’s solar maximum in 2001, it coincided with the SJS inferior conjunction in March 2001. And at this period BOTSS was quite far out from the Sun.
– The direction and angles certain comets’ gas tail pointed at as observed by SOHO during certain periods of time. For example, during Machholz’s 2002 perihelion approach, as in the video linked in my previous post, it is evident that based on the direction Machholz’s gas tail pointed at, BOTSS was >2.2 solar radii from the Sun. That followed up on the March 2001 SJS inferior conjunction where BOTSS is supposedly quite far out from the Sun.
And when Machholz returned again in 2012, its gas tail was aligned with the direction of the Sun, which indicated BOTSS was inside the Sun, and this was shortly after the SJS superior conjunction in early 2011.
SOHO footage alone showed the empirical evidence (especially comets Hyakutake, Machholz and NEAT) that proved that during those 3 aforementioned comets’ perihelion periods alone in 1996, 2002 and 2003, BOTSS was apparently more than just 2.2 solar radii away from the Sun. This observational evidence cannot be doubted.
In the UVS comet article the author (judging by the date) recently put up something he called Operation: ISON Barycentrism. (O: IB, is in the 2nd half of the page)
http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20gas%20and%20dust%20tails%20of%20comet.htm
In O:IB, during those listed comets’ perihelion periods, the positions of BOTSS are clearly indicated there. Hope that helps to answer your questions with the best of my knowledge on BOTSS. 🙂
Cheers!
GD: Thanks again for your links and video clips. Using the alignment of comet tails near the sun is a novel and potentially informative idea. I can certainly give room to the idea there may be an important electro-magnetic effect going on which the comet tail orientations might help illuminate the underlying causes of.
However, this is a different issue from the position of the BOTSS (SSB) relative to the solar centre. That is just a matter of the maths of barycentric orbits and the masses of the planets, and is pinned down precisely by the NASA-JPL ephemerides. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be able to precisely predict the onset of Venus’ transit of the Sun as seen from Earth, which as we demonstrated a couple of years ago, we can, to within seconds. So we’re going to have to disagree about what the empirical observations of the comet tail orientations are mechanically connected with for now. But I hope you’ll investigate the matter for yourself and let us know your findings.
There is another concept in the UVS view – the ‘dual core magnetic ring centre’:
‘the gas tail vortex should be pointing to the magnetic Ring Center of the Solar System’.
It’s not the same as the BOTSS and of course its existence is only speculation, as the author admits.
Hello again tallbloke,
You’re welcome. I humbly accept your disagreement.
Ah yes the Venus transit last year, brings back the memories of me successfully managing to take a picture of it through my Celestron Onyx 80EDF telescope with my smartphone. Glad I will not have to wait till 2117 for such a chance. Haha. 🙂
And hello to you too oldbrew. Yes UVS is a more than a bit “wordy”. Haha.
On a related matter, while investigating deeper into the UVS author’s “Operation: ISON Barycentrism”, I found that asides from his website, he also posted this on a forum about 2 months ago:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/anomalies/7024-anomalies-comet-operation-ison-barycentrism.html
Took me awhile to fully digest all of his posts in the above link, and will admit I still have not digest all the information in its entirety since your last reply tallbloke. But with what I have digest so far, let’s discuss about MRC as it is on its own entity, unrelated to SSB. So based on what the author recently mentioned about O: IB, UVS qualitatively predicts that comet C/2012 S1 ISON’s gas tail will deflect at an angle not directly away from the Sun Before the it “passes” the Sun from Earth/SOHO’s perspective. While I and all others were told by mainstream science that the comets’ gas tails deflect away from the Sun due to the solar wind it emanates, this could be proven wrong indeed if ISON’s gas tail really does deflect at an angle not directly away from the Sun Before it “passes” the Sun. And if so, I highly doubt the existence of MRC can remain a “speculation”
Making a list of comets observed by NASA/ESA’s SOHO & NASA’s STEREO spacecrafts mentioned in the author’s O: IB;
[SOHO]
– Comet 96P/Machholz
– Comet C/1996 B2 Hyakutake
– Comet C/2002 V1 NEAT
– Comet C/2006 P1 McNaught
– Comet C/2011 W3 Lovejoy
[STEREO]
– Comet C/2011 L4 PanSTARRS
– Comet C/2012 F6 Lemmon
From all the footage I observed, the gas tails of the aforementioned comets do indeed deflect at an angle not directly away from the Sun. However all these deflections occurred After they “pass” the Sun, from the perspectives of the 2 solar-based spacecrafts. My first thought when I digested all this information was that inertia could be the explanation for such observed phenomena.
But if ISON’s tail deflects not directly away from the Sun Before it “passes” it as seen from SOHO’s POV come November 27-28 this year (less than a month away), then the inertia explanation would have been rendered untenable. And as I stipulated, I do believe MRC’s existence becomes a lot more valid than such a mere “speculation”, despite what the author might admit.
Cheers!
TB,GD: just don’t forget about all velocity vectors involved and the tangential drag of the gas tail on the radial solar wind particles. Now if the tail actually pointed in the opposite direction after allowing for those two very real aspects even I would sit up and want to know why. 🙂
@wayne: I concur, hope that space weather (& clear sky) and observer angle can rule out the known (and additionally the mainstream’s recently conjectured) solar wind regimes.
Hello all,
I went on to look at SOHO footage of those comets again. Something caught my eye for Comet NEAT. During its February 2003 perihelion approach, it was affected by 2 CMEs (Coronal Mass Ejections) from the Sun:
Looking at the footage, there were 2 CMEs at the time of NEAT’s approach. The first CME occurred in the morning of 17 Feb and solar wind speeds hit the max of 641km/s during that period. The second CME occurred in the morning of 18 Feb and this time, solar wind speeds hit the max of 916km/s.
So if comet gas tails were indeed affected by solar wind, then NEAT’s gas tail should have increased its speed of deflection to then be eventually pointing directly away from the Sun due to the sudden increase in solar wind speeds. But as we all can explicitly see from the observed SOHO footage, the rate of which NEAT’s gas tail changed its angle of deflection proceeded at a perpetual, and not discontinuous rate. Here is the SOHO data link:
http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/crn/archive/CRN_1999.HTML
Now this already made me more sceptical of mainstream science’s assertion that comets’ gas tails point directly away from the Sun due to the solar wind it emanates.
Cheers!
Hi all, I saw my work on UVS was being commented here. Will reply as much as I can, and please understand that my reply merely comes from the UVS perspective, and in all possibilities, I might be incorrect. And I might probably not know sufficiently on the topics for what may opinions posted here.
hunter: Things seems going to really fall through the looking glass. Check it out on this:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/idealab/galaxy-cluster-spawns-stars-faster-than-any-in-known-universe
oldbrew: Allow me to elaborate on the basis for circular orbit from the UVS perspective.
“Based on the UVS model, a star systems is undulated by its stellar vortex, and it is impelled by its nested spheroidal unisonal vortex that vortically encapsulates its heliosphere. If two celestial objects are induced to revolve each other by the stellar vortex that is impelled by its spheroidal unisonal vortex that is not precessing, in its inertial frame of reference, the two celestial objects would revolve around each other in a barycenter motion with circular orbits centering their barycenter.
From the UVS perspective, all typically manifested spheroidal unisonal vortices in nature are primarily precessing in two-axis spin, which is reflected by the empirical observations that all revolving celestial objects are precessing.
Based on unisonal vortex mechanism, a stellar vortex in precession would therefore be transformed to become a dual-core stellar vortex with the precession effect of its spheroidal unisonal vortex; this effect renders the elliptical orbit with apsidal motion on two barycenter focal points for any revolving celestial object.”
See a UVS topic on “The structure of a galaxy” that elaborates on how its vortical motion is being tranferred to its star systems and their planetary systems.
http://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20structure%20of%20a%20galaxy%20and%20Universe.htm
tallbloke; The trefoil trajectory governed by the Jupiter-Saturn as proposed by Ing. Ivanka Charvátová, its sunspot cycles are 10 years long. The mean solar cycle is empirically observed to be ~11 years instead.
From the UVS perspective, it is plain fact that the Sun vortically revolves around the barycenter of the Solar System (BOTSS), it is as result of the Sun is exchanging angular momentum primarily with the barycenter of Jupiter and all its moons, and subsequently with the barycenters of all other satellites, their sub-satellites, and all stuff in the heliosphere. This imply the barycentric coordinates is not the barycenter of the Solar System.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinates_%28astronomy%29
And from the UVS perspective, the barycentric coordinates revolves around the barycenter of the Solar System.
And of course all significant precession cycles has their impact, and interestingly the ~59.3 year integral precession cycle of Jupiter-Saturn demonstrated its effect on the ecosystem of Earth. And so would the barycentric coordinate has a direct impact on Venus transits, but this cannot prove that the barycentric coordinates is the barycenter of the Solar System.
Its will a long shot to discuss on chaotic nature of the motion rather than it’s velocity that affects solar activity, so I would not get into the details for this at the moment, the above is already quite a stuff for serious reconsideration on the actual barycenter of the Solar System. But velocity of a planet has a direct function for its precession effect is what I can say for now.
IMHO, Gipsy Danger was correct on his finding with SOHO data on the contradiction for solar wind perturbation on Comet NEAT.
However, the UVS prediction on Comet ISON pointing to BOTSS was falsified after that comet swing past. But this does not dismiss the BOTSS. Anyway, for those who follow this UVS prediction, the OIB debrief is here:
http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20gas%20and%20dust%20tails%20of%20comet.htm#OIB
Hi Vincent. I suggest you Join us on this current thread, where the topic of barycentric solar motion is on the table at the moment:
Cheers
tallbloke; Correction, its 59.3 years instead of ~50.9 year integral precession cycle of Jupiter-Saturn.
The ancient Chinese has observed this precession cycle more than 3,000 years ago, it is known as the sexagenary cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagenary_cycle
tallbloke; Thanks for the invitation, I will pop in to have a look.
From the UVS perspective, saying that the Milky Galaxy is a vortex is not entirely correct. The Milky Way Galaxy is induced by its galactic vortex, and this impels its satellite galactic vortices to induce satellite galaxies and star systems, as well as impels its stellar vortices to induce planetary systems. Nonetheless, the Milky Galaxy is indeed a vortical system.
tallbloke; It is a fact that the Solar System is “encapsulated” in the heliosphere to revolves around the Sun, and the charged particles filled heliosphere is approximately 18.15 trillion times larger than the Sun; this significant mass factor of charged particles has been overlooked for the Solar System barycenter calculation.
Vincent: the charged particles filled heliosphere is approximately 18.15 trillion times larger than the Sun; this significant mass factor of charged particles has been overlooked
Size is one thing, density another. How can we estimate the mass involved?
tallbloke: IDK, but I know this cannot be ignored; it has significant mass effect for the primary precession cycle of the Solar System. Finding this answer would be as good as solving the 11 year solar cycle with quantitative proof.
Vincent: The Sun sends out its energy in all directions. The distribution of the particle mass in the solar wind will have a gradient from Sun to heliopause. That gradient is what we need to know. Perhaps voyager had some kind of crude measuring device for this?
@Tallbloke; your question has set my brain into overdrive! As I think in pictures, this nearly turned off my eyes. The Heliopause is a good analogy for the electron shell of the atom as the “surface” of our solar system. Would the Oort cloud be part of the solar system or part of the galaxy?
AS to the density, I seem to remember that Voyager did measure particle density through out its’ travel. Particles per cubic meter, for all practical purposes proton ions. Not sure where the information is, Was that a JPL or Cal Tec project? Good luck digging! pg
tallbloke: In the Newtonian model, the mass of the charged particles in the heliosphere is relatively miniscule as compared with the Sun, but the mass effect of its supersonic charged particles that radiate in spiral motion, can have significant dragging effects on the Solar System.
See a video clip that illustrates the spiral motion of solar wind in the heliosphere that was empirically observed to be rotating slightly.
Here is the take from the UVS perspective, and of course this is a very sketchy view:
Volume of the Sun is 1.9891×10^30 kg, heliosphere has an apporximate radius of 100 astronomical units, density of the Solar Wind is 4.0 atoms per cubic centimeter, the mass of a proton is 1.6726×10^-27. And therefore a very sketchy calculation with omission errors for the total mass of supersonic protons in the heliosphere is only roughly 9.45×10^19 kg, but it could have a significant precessing effect on the Solar System in an overall angular momentum of 4.25×10^28 kg m s^-1 with an average velocity of 450 km/s, and this is apparently not a miniscule effect.
However, TBH, I concede that calculating this precession effect of charged particles on the Solar System is beyond my ability at the moment.
“I concede that calculating this precession effect of charged particles on the Solar System is beyond my ability at the moment.”
Vincent, don’t worry, you are in good company! 😉
oldbrew said on October 24, 2013 at 8:59 am: “Animation of Jupiter vortices including the contra-rotating bands here:
http://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20vortices%20of%20Jupiter.htm”
I had since revamped that topic to present it from another point of view. Although 3 out of the 4 qualitative predictions are with indubitable quality proofs, ironically, the most interesting qualitative prediction is the one that is not yet qualitatively proven.
IMHO, if anyone has the resources to measure the revolving period of the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, or have any archive to show that its revolving period is 10.6 hr, he found the proof for the causality of Great Red Spot’s stability.
Nonetheless, please take the propositions with a pinch of salt, and so just enjoy the article causally with its alternative point of view.
tallbloke: Thanks for your kind words. UVS is a highly controversial TOE for the paradigm shift it is proposing, so your kind words will echo in its long and difficult way ahead.
tallbloke: For whatsoever reason, I was unable to post a comment to reply Roger Andrews asking on “(We need some kind of a downward heat transport mechanism to explain the cyclic SST-SAT relationship anyway.) Any thoughts?
He raised this question in this TALLBLOKE talkshop thread: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/tallbloke-and-tim-channon-a-cycles-analysis-approach-to-predicting-solar-activity/
Watch a video clip on “”Perpetual Ocean” that was visualized by the NASA Goddard Scientific Visualization Studio.
From the UVS perspective, the downward heat transport mechanism in the ocean is rendered by the precession effect of deep-ocean whirlpool clusters that are impelled by oceanic jet streams.
For further elaboration on oceanic whirlpool in the UVS perceptive for how its trigger mechanism could have come from space, please visit:
http://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20Bermuda%20Triangle.htm#oceanic_whirlpool
tallbloke says: “It’s the chaotic nature of the motion rather than it’s velocity that affects solar activity IMO.”
The synchronized phenomenon of Little Ice Age on Earth with low solar activities, where there were three climate minima in 1650, 1770 and 1850, had all occurred in a balanced Jupiter-Sun-Saturn arrangement with all other planets pushing the Sun to positions that were nearest to the BOTSS. And supposedly, the Sun had thus vortically revolved at lower tangentials speed around the actual barycenter of the Solar System (BOTSS) in those moments.
For example, in 1850 the Solar System arrangement was aligned Jupiter-Sun-Moon-Earth-Saturn-Uranus-Pluto. This is essentially a superior conjunction of Jupiter, Sun, and the barycenter of these other Solar System objects. The main barycenter rendered by all these aligned Solar System objects, would be inside the Sun and was at a nearest point from the center of the Sun.
A less energetic solar system as a result of its slowed down angular velocity would result in lesser solar irradiance and internal heat generated for all Solar System objects; this results in lesser solar activities and hence lesser solar irradiance. IMHO, kinetic energy in the torque-free precession of photosphere is converted to thermal energy in the vortical process for its plasma glow and radiation; the velocity of the Solar System object in its precession cycle affects solar activities.
Evidently, in the 1650, 1770 and 1850 case studies with Solar System arrangement, Earth should be at a nearest point from the barycenter of the aligned Solar System objects, and therefore was spiraling at a lowest velocity through space in those precession cycles. A less energetic Earth with reduced total solar irradiance, could therefore render the phenomenon of Little Age that synchronized with low solar activities.
Spot some typos error in a previous post, and think I should use the 122AU figure for the radius of heliosphere instead of the 100AU figure, this was how I worked out the heliosphere volume is 18 trillion times the volume of the Sun. So here is the revision:
The Newtonian Solar System model does not factor in the precession effect on mass of the charged particles encapsulated in the heliosphere that wobbles, which is approximately 18 trillion times the volume of the Sun. This suggests the actual barycenter of the Solar System is not the conventional barycentric coordinate, which was calculated without considering the mass of those revolving charged particles that propagate in spiral motion at an average velocity of 400-500 km per second in the Solar System to fill the entire heliosphere.
Volume of the Sun is 1.412×10^18 cubic km, mass of the Sun is 1.9891×10^30 kg, heliosphere has an approximate radius of 122 astronomical units, density of the Solar Wind is 4.0 atoms per cubic centimeter, the mass of a proton is 1.6726×10^-27 kg. And therefore a very sketchy calculation with omission errors for the total mass of supersonic protons in the heliosphere is only roughly 1.70×10^20 kg, but this could have a significant precessing effect on the Solar System in an overall angular momentum of 7.67×10^28 kg m s^-1 with its 450 km average velocity, and this is apparently not a miniscule effect.
If consider an upper limit for the density of solar wind at 7.0 atoms per cubic centimeter as suggested by the other solar wind research, the potential mass effect of protons in the heliosphere is approximately 6.75% of the Sun’s mass, and also consider the dragging effect by all other Solar System rocks and stuff beside Sun, Jupiter and Saturn, this is very potentially the catalyst that can drag to alter the 10 year half-cycle of Sun, Jupiter and Saturn, to the 11 year half-cycle for BOTSS, Sun and Jupiter.
Please visit the UVS subtopic on “The 22-year integral solar cycle” for the links to the above figures.
file:///C:/Users/Predator/Desktop/UVS%20research/UVS%20model%202014/WFE%20on%20sunspot.htm#solar_cycle
Anyone wants to see calculation details, can email me for its spreadsheet.
‘ if anyone has the resources to measure the revolving period of the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, or have any archive to show that its revolving period is 10.6 hr’ – Vincent W-F
This website says it revolves in about 6 days.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/jupiter/redspot.html
oldbrew: I believe that website mentioned GRS rotation period is six days.
What UVS is looking for, is the mean sidereal revolving period of the GRS over one revolving cycle of Jupiter; i.e. 11.86 years of data collection.
So far having searched the info on GRS sidereal revolving period, it has been drawing blanks. Only useful information was, it is known that the GRS sits on the retrograding jet stream of the South Equatorial Belt, which varies in speed and intensity from time to time. As can be empirically observed, the GRS revolves on Jupiter with a slight lagging effect by riding on the rotation cycle of Jupiter, which takes 9.925 hour for one rotation cycle.
Have been tracking the GRS with a backyard scope lately, but because of weather permitting, sky glow issues, the GRS don’t always transit in the night for its visibility most of the time, some years Jupiter is not in the night sky when it is with the Sun, and I can only at best partially track its synodic revolving period when Jupiter was around its opposition; these has been a back breaking experience with little useful result.
I believe the full data for the GRS sidereal revolving period is keep in archive somewhere.
Thanks for helping to search. 🙂
Vincent: this document from the 1960s has a graphic showing periods mostly between 9h 55m 30s and 9h 55m 45s (on the page marked 80 in the corner), based on readings over a 135-year period.
Click to access Jupiter%27s%20great%20Red%20Spot%20scientificamerican0268-74.pdf
I don’t know if that tells us anything useful.
The GRS is transiting on Jupiter right now at my part of the world, but its been raining and it doesn’t look like the rain will stop anytime soon with a clear up sky. 😦
Thanks for the link, I will go through it.
oldbrew; Went through the paper, and I believe that archive for the revolving period of GRS over a 135 year period observation was professionally done. This squarely falsified the UVS qualitative prediction on the GRS is perturbed by the three Galilean moons in Laplace resonance.
Nonetheless, TYVM. Will give you due credit in the UVS topic on “Vortices of Jupiter” for supplying this piece of evidence.
6 days is 144hrs. What’s the period of the 1:2:4 Laplace resonance?
tallbloke: 6 days is the rotation period of the GRS on its own axis, it is not referred to the sidereal revolving period. Which was just confirmed with a 135 year record that the GRS had revolved in a sidereal period with fluctuation between 9h 55m 30s and 9h 55m 45s.
The period of the 1:2:4 Laplace resonance is respectively 42.5 hr:85.2 hr:171.7 hr.
The middle value divided by 144 is .591. This value relates to the falloff of gravity with distance when the distance relates to a phi ratio.
tallbloke: Good suggestion from another perspective. And this is very probably the case.