Gerry Pease Links Improved and Updated Solar -Planetary paper

Posted: December 1, 2016 by tallbloke in Astrophysics, Natural Variation, solar system dynamics

Ex U.S. Naval Observatory astronomer and long-time talkshopper Gerry Pease has sent me a link to an update of the paper he wrote with Gregory Glenn which we discussed recently. It represents some important and novel work in our field of solar-planetary theory. Of particular interest is the tight phase and magnitude coherence of solar-barycentric torque over the last two Jose cycles.

jose-torque

Gerry writes:

v2 of  Long Term Sunspot Cycle Phase Coherence is now available at https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1610/1610.03553.pdf.

Figure 2 has a corrected scale, Figure 3 has been added, Figure 4 replaces the previous Figure 3 with an improved overlay Figure, and Figures 3-33 have been renumbered as Figures 4-34. Less than one page of important additional explanatory text has been added, but I am confident that Talkshop readers will find the added information and improved charts well worth a read.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all the TT readers of v1 who contributed helpful comments that inspired us to create the more readable and informative v2.   We look forward to reading and replying to comments on v2.

Comments
  1. Gerry Pease says:

    Roger, we spent a lot of time proofreading v2 but you already uncovered a typo on page 2. “…a 2018-2053 declining torque plateau is clearly seen on Figure 3.” should have read “…a 2038-2053 declining torque plateau is clearly seen on Figure 3.”

  2. Geoff Sharp says:

    From the paper:

    The primary torque cycles are produced by Jupiter and Saturn. In Figure 2, note also the 1967-1974 and 2004-2010 phase distortions from Uranus’ lower frequency harmonics. Venus, Earth, and Mercury produce the vertical torque spikes.

    The phase distortions can only come from the combined effects of both Uranus and Neptune while together, not Uranus alone. It might also be worth mentioning that all solar slowdowns across the Holocene only occur during these “phase distortions” of the torque cycle. The torque cycle distortions occur at the same time as the AMP events (angular momentum perturbations) and the single disordered inner loop solar orbits about the SSB.

  3. Geoff Sharp says:

    Figure 3 shows nothing extraordinary. The outer 4 planets slowly change position in relation to each other over 4627 years before repeating. Of course two so called 179 year Jose periods in succession will look similar.

    But when looked at over the longer term the drift is very apparent as this little known graph from Carl shows:

  4. Gerry Pease says:

    GS,

    The phase distortions from Neptune are comparatively small, and are further diluted over long time spans compared with the more visible Uranus distortions and the inner planet spikes. Note in Table 5 that the synodic resonance of Uranus with Jupiter has a period of 178.94957 years, which is fairly close to the 178.73091 years period for Saturn. As noted on page 16, the Jupiter- Uranus synodic resonance period closest to 179 years has a 4-sigma outlier value of 179.559 years.

    Yes, the two 179 year Jose periods in succession look very similar, and because of that we can confidently expect the next Jose period to be very similar to the current one. That is the whole point in fact. Any presumed effects of imprecise proxy evidence of solar cycle phasing more than 450 years ago are essentially unknown, and combined with the backwards propagation errors in the planetary ephemerides to more than 2,000 years ago, there is clearly no reason to consider any such hypothetical effects during the current or next Jose Cycle.

    Also note that the predicted start time from Table 6 of SC28 is 2057.5 +/- 1 year, 1-sigma. All indications are that SC28 will start right on schedule for phase coherence with SC12.

  5. tallbloke says:

    Hi Geoff. Carl’s diagram shows 32 Jose cycles spanning ~ 5420 years. Over that entire period, the drift appears to be around 8.25 years. I expect that to be well within the margin of error of the ephemerides. Gerry could confirm.

    Perhaps of more interest is that over the 5420 year period, some sharp kinks in the torque curve smooth out completely, whereas others more or less persist.

  6. oldbrew says:

    The sun in ‘cue ball’ mode: ‘According to Nasa, the number of sunspots appears to be dwindling faster than expected.’

    http://www.thegwpf.com/number-of-sunspots-dwindling-faster-than-expected-nasa-says/

  7. Geoff Sharp says:

    Hi Rog, I get 33 lines, but the drift is the changing position of U/N measured against the J/S synodic. This drift is what shapes the Holocene solar proxy and it all comes around for another go every 4627 years. You might be interested in the following new data showing the major solar events over the Holocene repeating every 4627 years.

    You may notice the old 340 year anomaly that used to exist in the INTCAL98 record that has now disappeared.

    This is a big step for planetary theory, I have been calling out the old record as wrong for many years. The 10Be and 14C data now follows the astronomical record, the drift is accurate.

  8. Geoff Sharp says:

    Gerry, my point is that neither Uranus or Neptune cause phase distortions (perturbations) in the solar torque, AM, solar distance graphs etc on their own, they have to be together where their combined influence is close to Saturn. I am surprised you have forgotten the work we did together in this area many years ago. You should update your paper to correct this issue?

    The next 179 years will be very much the same as the previous and we have to wait around 2000 years for the next LIA type event. I see Javier has recognized correctly the same outcome purely by studying the patterns of the past.

  9. Gerry Pease says:

    Geoff,

    I have not forgotten the work we did together, and I am not disputing any present or past work in which you are involved. Greg and I have taken into account the small changes to the derived Jose Cycle up to 2080 and detailed the applicable ones for prediction purposes in Table 4. The contribution of Neptune to these small changes is too insignificant to consitute an issue.

    If the purpose of your comments is to promote your current work, I don’t think you are using the proper venue (i.e. comments on the paper written by myself and Greg).

  10. Geoff Sharp says:

    Gerry, you do not understand how the 4 outer planets control the solar path. I am trying to inform you but you are not listening.

    Stating that Neptune’s contribution is insignificant displays my point entirely.

    Unfortunately I think your paper offers nothing new to science other than showing that two similar cycles go in and out of sync over a very short time frame, which is rather pointless. We seem to be talking past each other but I wish you the best in your endeavours.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Geoff, Gerry isn’t saying that Neptune’s contribution to the solar path is insignificant. He’s saying that the drift of Neptune between this and the next Jose cycle and the effect of that drift on the torque curve isn’t significant in terms of an effect on their solar activity prediction.

  12. Geoff Sharp says:

    Rog, Neptune has a greater contribution than Uranus to the solar path variances. All changes in each Jose period are from U/N precessions. Your statement and Gery’s is incorrect. The changes may be small from one Jose cycle to the next, but that change comes from both Neptune and Uranus, you cannot exclude Neptune, especially as it’s the major player of the two.

    Gerry’s paper needs to be amended.

  13. tallbloke says:

    Which leads me to spot another typo in the caption to fig 8. Saturn needs to be replaced by Uranus.

    By the way Geoff, Rick Salvador’s model successfully replicates 4kyr of 10be using JEV and U. N is not required.

    We all have our own ways of using the observations. This time, we’re discussing Gerry’s. Telling him his way has to be amended so it’s like your way isn’t in the spirit of free enquiry.

  14. Gerry Pease says:

    Thanks Rog,

    Figure 8 is discussed further on p. 16: “Figure 8 shows an example of the small offset of Uranus from synodic resonance with Jupiter, Saturn, and Venus on October 30, 1692.”

    I checked Figure 8 and verified, using a straight-edge, that Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn line up in syzygy, which constitutes the three-planet resonance. The slight offset of Uranus from being resonant with Jupiter and Saturn at this particular time illustrates how it is both massive enough and near enough to Jupiter and Saturn to avoid Jose Cycle resonant domination by those planets. Figure 13 is an example of distant Neptune’s near-resonance with Jupiter and Saturn.

    I have already started a new errata list:
    p. 2 2018-2053 should be 2038-2053 (the one you exposed),
    p. 15 Table 4 & Table 5 should be Table 5 & Table 6 (found by advising Geoff to examine Table 4)
    p. 16 Table 6 should be Table 7

    Greg and I learned when the major rewrite was done that we were strangely blind to a large number of typos that had been created. Perhaps we need to hire a professional proofreader and create v3 when we are sure the typos have all been found. In the meantime, we appreciate your help and the help of TT readers in finding remaining typos.

  15. Geoff Sharp says:

    It’s not my way Rog, it’s simple solar system dynamics 101. The torque curve is a direct result of all 4 outer planets.

    If Gerry wants to rewrite solar system physics that’s up to him, I have pointed out the error in good faith and will leave it there.

  16. tallbloke says:

    Geoff: I don’t think Gerry would disagree that the torque curve is the result of all four gas giants. But I do think you’re missing the point he’s making about Uranus. Anyway, no matter.

    Gerry: Right, I see what you mean with figs 8 and 13 now.

  17. Geoff Sharp says:

    Just for references sake, the percentage of solar displacement (contribution to solar torque, solar AM, solar distance from SSB and solar velocity) per planet as listed.

    Jupiter: 49.16%
    Saturn: 27.06
    Uranus: 8.31%
    Neptune: 15.41%

    Total: 99.94%

    Distance matters. Neptune has less mass than Uranus, but is further away.

  18. Gerry Pease says:

    Please show us the equation used to calculate those percentages and why “solar displacement” increases with increasing distance from the Sun. If Neptune was orbiting the Sun a light year out it would have a really high “solar distance displacement percentage?” It would also be virtually impossible to detect, gravitationally or by any other means..

    BTW: Neptune has 1.1751152 times the mass of Uranus. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/

  19. Geoff Sharp says:

    My mistake on the Neptune mass, got them arse about.

    But at 1.17 times the mass of Uranus, Neptune nearly doubles the solar displacement. Distance matters.

    If the moon was twice as far away as at present, would the Earth wobble more in its orbit around the EMB or less?

    Would the EMB distance from the centre of the Earth increase or decrease?

  20. oldbrew says:

    Re typos: 1858-2057 should be 1878-2057

  21. Paul Vaughan says:

    Quotable TB quote:

    the spirit of free enquiry

    Well said.

  22. Gerry Pease says:

    Here’s how barycentric coordinates are determined in an n-body system Geoff:
    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BarycentricCoordinates.html

    If you do the math you will see what I meant about the influence of Neptune on the motion of the Sun wrt the solar system barycenter. You should also learn Sir Isaac Newton’s three simple laws of motion. They are easy to find with Google.

  23. Gerry Pease says:

    Thanks oldbrew,

    I’ve added it with the other embarrassing p. 2 typo in my errata list.

  24. Geoff Sharp says:

    The maths has been done Gerry, and your complicated methods along with Newtons Laws are not needed, the simple two body problem equation is sufficient.

    Using that simple math the Neptune displacement comes out at around 224,500 kilometres which is around 15%.

    The fact that you don’t accept the figures and your associated false statements confirms my point re not understanding the solar system basics.

  25. tallbloke says:

    Geoff, have you got Carl’s rate of change of Torque diagram to hand? One of the points to consider here is that Neptune is a slow moving body.

  26. Gerry Pease says:

    Geoff,

    Now that you have restricted your issue to a totally different problem (the two body problem) don’t forget to apply Newton’s inverse square law of gravitation. Your simplification of the problem does make it very easy to understand. And the answer to your previous question is that as the distance between the two bodies is increased, the less wobble the more massive body has in the barycentric inertial frame. I hope that resolves the issue for you because, frankly, it is getting very boring.

  27. Geoff Sharp says:

    No Gerry the wobble becomes greater as the orbiting body moves away from the body with greater mass. The centre of gravity or barycentric point moves out further from the more massive body creating a bigger wobble of the more massive body.

    This is basic stuff Gerry, distance matters. Your paper fails the peer review test, sorry if that is boring for you.

  28. Geoff Sharp says:

    Perhaps you could give us Gerry’s version of the solar system?

    What are your calculated planetary solar displacement percentages of the outer 4?

  29. Gerry Pease says:

    Yes Geoff, the wobble becomes less as the distance increases between the bodies. This is even intuitively obvious. Do you really believe that a single planet orbiting the Sun in a near-circular orbit one light year distant from the Sun would have any measurable effect at all on the motion of the Sun in the solar system barycentric inertial frame? Your solar displacement percentages are total garbage, but if you want to use them for your publications that’s fine with me. As I’ve said before, that would hopefully be a different venue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s