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.

  30. oldbrew says:

    Looking at the synodic periods of Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune:
    14 J-N = 178.9591y
    9 J-S = 178.7853y
    5 S-N = 179.2728y

    The average of these three figures is obviously very close to 179 years.

    Every 13 J-N the conjunction returns to almost the same position (about 3 degrees off).
    After 14 J-N we get the 179 year period, so combining:
    13 x 14 J-N = 13 x ~179 years or 2326.47y = 79 Saturn orbits = Hallstatt period?

    Data: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par

  31. tallbloke says:

    Another paper which finds Jupiter and Uranus are the key orbital periods for an effect on TSI, I’ll do a separate post on this soon.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1384107616300847

    Abstract
    Total solar irradiance (TSI) is the primary quantity of energy that is provided to the Earth. The properties of the TSI variability are critical for understanding the cause of the irradiation variability and its expected influence on climate variations. A deterministic property of TSI variability can provide information about future irradiation variability and expected long-term climate variation, whereas a non-deterministic variability can only explain the past.

    This study of solar variability is based on an analysis of two TSI data series, one since 1700 A.D. and one since 1000 A.D.; a sunspot data series since 1610 A.D.; and a solar orbit data series from 1000 A.D. The study is based on a wavelet spectrum analysis. First, the TSI data series are transformed into a wavelet spectrum. Then, the wavelet spectrum is transformed into an autocorrelation spectrum to identify stationary, subharmonic and coincidence periods in the TSI variability.

    The results indicate that the TSI and sunspot data series have periodic cycles that are correlated with the oscillations of the solar position relative to the barycenter of the solar system, which is controlled by gravity force variations from the large planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. A possible explanation for solar activity variations is forced oscillations between the large planets and the solar dynamo.

    We find that a stationary component of the solar variability is controlled by the 12-year Jupiter period and the 84-year Uranus period with subharmonics. For TSI and sunspot variations, we find stationary periods related to the 84-year Uranus period. Deterministic models based on the stationary periods confirm the results through a close relation to known long solar minima since 1000 A.D. and suggest a modern maximum period from 1940 to 2015. The model computes a new Dalton-type sunspot minimum from approximately 2025 to 2050 and a new Dalton-type period TSI minimum from approximately 2040 to 2065.

  32. tallbloke says:

    Gerry, Geoff is correct.
    Try the barycenter calculator here
    http://www.fxsolver.com/browse/formulas/Barycenter+(Two-body+problem)

    Of course, smaller bodies further away orbit slowly, so they don’t produce sudden changes in torque which affect solar variation so much as bigger bodies closer in.

    Now, can we offer apologies where necessary, and move the discussion on in a polite and rational way please.

  33. Gerry Pease says:

    tallbloke;
    Yes, Geoff was correct about the position of the barycenter in the two body problem. When he specifically mentioned that red herring, I certainly did not dispute that in the two body problem the distance between each body and the barycenter obviously increases as the distance between the bodies increases or that the mutual gravitational attraction increases proportional to the increase in the product of the masses. The only issue we were arguing (ignoring Geoff’s repeated insults as best as I could manage) is whether or not distortions from Neptune perturbations significantly affect the results of the study.

    I agree with oldbrew’s assessment:
    “Looking at the synodic periods of Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune:
    14 J-N = 178.9591y
    9 J-S = 178.7853y
    5 S-N = 179.2728y
    The average of these three figures is obviously very close to 179 years.
    Every 13 J-N the conjunction returns to almost the same position (about 3 degrees off).”

    Greg and I both think that Geoff and I should just agree to disagree on this point. Our disagreement should not be a hostile one.

  34. oldbrew says:

    TB: 5 [average] Hale cycles = 8 Jupiter-Uranus conjunctions works well.

  35. Geoff Sharp says:

    Not the best apology I have ever seen but now that we have established my planetary solar displacement values are correct and not “total garbage” perhaps we can get some perspective on the major error in this paper.

    The phase distortions (my red dots) are caused by Uranus and Neptune being together, not from Uranus alone. Without Neptune there would be no phase distortions. It is important to get this bit right because the phase distortions are associated with solar slowdowns and are the major factor in any change across the so called Jose Cycle.

    I also question the lower frequency harmonics (vertical spikes caused by the minor planets) as the combined rocky planet contribution is around .06%?

  36. Gerry Pease says:

    Geoff,

    I will go so far as to admit that the direct contribution of Neptune to the red-dotted solar torque distortions does not need to be characterized as totally insignificant. However, it is very obvious that the major contribution is the Neptune-perturbed orbit period of Uranus. In fact, Neptune was discovered by examining the part of the sky where a planet capable of producing the known perturbations might exist. The orbit period of more distant Neptune is itself close enough to being resonant with the Jupiter/Saturn Jose Cycle synodic period that it clearly amplifies that period much more than it distorts it. We both agree that the existence of Neptune is a significant factor in the barycentric motion of the Sun. Let’s please end the discussion on that positive note.

    The vertical spikes caused by the inner planets are higher frequency harmonics. Assign whatever percentage you like, but please don’t expect a reply from me. If you insist on having the last word I’m fine with that too, because I just want to move on.

  37. Gerry Pease says:

    Geoff,
    Something that is easily checked is your indicated red dot times of Uranus conjunctions with Neptune. Solar Simulator 2 shows the only conjunction of those two planets on the Sun line in the time frame of Figure 2 as being in April, 1993. You might check that yourself.

  38. Geoff Sharp says:

    That’s right Gerry, U/N has to wait until J/S get in position, its a timing thing.

    The strongest “phase disruptions” that coincide with LIA type events across the Holocene occur when we get the above configuration, they are separated by 4627 years. It is obvious that you either never understood or have forgotten the theory. U/N dont have to be in perfect alignment, just close. The above configuration happens at the red dots (as do solar slowdowns).

    Please read my paper thoroughly and come back with questions, we are not on a level playing field.

    http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=36513&#reference

    Very frustrating that you have no clue…what hope do I have??

  39. tallbloke says:

    Geoff: Telling someone they are clueless probably shouldn’t increase your hopes of getting them to study your work. 🙂

    I note that in your figure two caption you state that the 1967-74 and 2004-2010 phase perturbations are due to “Uranus’ lower frequency harmonics”. Why no mention for Neptune?

    You asked: “I also question the lower (sic) frequency harmonics (vertical spikes caused by the minor planets) as the combined rocky planet contribution is around .06%? “

    Homing in on the big year long spike in 1990 we see a triple conjunction of JEV opposed to a triple conjunction of SUN on Jan 5. Through the first half of July we see Earth crossing the SUN conjunction with Venus out of the frame in quadrature. On Jan 28 1991 Earth is in conjunction with Jupiter again, opposing SUN once more.

    The key point here is that J in opposition to SUN puts the Sun’s centre close to the system barycentre. At this balance point, even the small displacements Earth and Venus are capable of can produce large changes in Torque, which is not a measurement of displacement, but a moment of force producing a change in rotation (orbit). As an imperfect analogy we could say that because the ‘pivot point’ is moving slowly relative to the Sun’s centre in 1990, the lever (Sun-Earth line) is able to change the Sun’s *orbit* (not displacement) disproportionately.

    A spike with as big an amplitude but half the duration occurs in 1997 at another balance point where JUN are in conjunction and the Sun is pushed nearly as far from the system barycentre as it gets. During this ‘standstill’, we get a shift from a SEV conjunction in quadrature to JUN to Earth opposed S 6 months later, producing a similarly disproportionate change in torque.

    Torque is not about displacement, but the rapidity of change. Hence my earlier comment about bodies closer in producing more rapid changes (and solar variation) than bodies orbiting more slowly further out, even though the displacement they produce (over long periods) is bigger. For another imperfect analogy, consider how a short sharp shock can free a wheel nut when a larger total force more slowly applied won’t shift it.

  40. Geoff Sharp says:

    Rog, the graph with red dots is from Gerry ‘s paper with my dots, the caption is also from Gerry,s paper. This is my whole point, lots getting lost in translation here.

    The Solar AM, torque and distance from SSB graphs are all nearly identical. That suggests they are all very very closely linked. IE more displacement is equal to torque and AM, the modulation and perturbations are the same. If torque had another complication it would show itself in a divergence from the other graphs?

    With a total of 0.6% solar displacement from all 4 rocky planets it very unlikely to see a variance of such magnitude, but if you have any literature on the topic I would be most interested.

  41. Geoff Sharp says:

    Saying someone has no clue about my work is not saying they are clueless. Just stating the facts.

  42. Gerry Pease says:

    Geoff,

    Rereading your paper, I remember now why I wasn’t impressed by your predictions. It’s a timing thing. Neptune and Uranus stay close together for long periods of time, during which there are a few configurations similar to the one you show that include Jupiter and Saturn symmetry, but do not at all coincide with angular momentum and torque anomalies..

    Your Figure 17 includes other claimed prediction criteria with appropriate disclaimers:

    “Figure 17. 200-year solar cycle prediction. The trough in the sunspot record coinciding with the opposition of Uranus & Neptune in past records and is expected to remain the same. Solar proxy records do not show high solar activity during times of low AM (Figures 5 & 7). The length of each future solar cycle remains unknown and predicted solar cycles should be taken as a guide with the overall trend being important. AM timing does not seem to be related to solar cycle timing. Predictions are based on overall AM strength.”

    I have many questions based on many clues in your paper, but since we are not on a level playing field I will ask just one. The timing of the right hand red dot does seem to be in the right place for causality, but why is the left hand red dot after the distortion peak? Why do the angular momentum and torque distortions start before the alleged cause of the distortions?

  43. Geoff Sharp says:

    Gerry, if you have just read my paper and have a reasonable understanding we are on the same field. Its easier to have discourse if I know you have the basics of my theory understood..I have tried to do the same with your paper.

    You are correct that there are multiple opportunities for the above configuration to occur during the 80 year window when U/N are close, there is normally around 3 but we only got two this time around. They occur during Charvatova’s disordered phase and every configuration is different over 4627 years and then starts again. I think you will find that all solar grand minima occur when this configuration occurs, but I am happy to look at any grand minima where this does not happen…I have looked and not found any. But I can assure you that the configuration will always show a AM etc anomaly if the configuration has Saturn in the green and red zones.

    The disclaimer is I have not seen any evidence for accurately predicting solar cycle length..I think the modulation and grand minima events are separate from cycle timing,

    The red dots are just to alert the eye to the phase distortion and not meant to suggest exact timing of the above configuration. But you raise a good point. The sunspot record shows us another area of timing if we take on board the anomaly is separate from cycle length. In the past as well as SC24 it seems if the anomaly occurs at the tail end of a cycle the next cycle is still affected, but if the anomaly is late ie near cycle max the effect is much diminished but still observable (SC20, SC7).

    Remember every configuration is different, but by looking at the AM anomaly shape, the planet angles and most importantly the shape of the solar disordered inner loop we can quantify the level of likely downturn. The above configuration with Saturn at +30 deg is dead centre of the LIA event at 1472, -3155 and -7782 (4627 year separation) and this agrees with the latest solar proxy records of both 10Be and 14C as shown earlier. The solar paths are also identical.

  44. tallbloke says:

    Geoff: The Solar AM, torque and distance from SSB graphs are all nearly identical

    Well if that’s so, what do you suggest causes the short term perturbations rather than the rocky planets? Dark matter? 🙂

  45. Geoff Sharp says:

    No idea Rog, but I guess hardly important?

  46. tallbloke says:

    Weak response Geoff.
    The secrets of shorter term solar variation are hidden within those short-sharp torque reversals.

    Here’s the effect of that 1991 torque spike I described earlier.

  47. Gerry Pease says:

    Geoff,

    Thank you. In the v3 replacement I will include some information about the role of Neptune in my brief description of the Figure 2 torque anomalies. I will be busy with other matters for a few days, so please don’t take it personally if I don’t respond to your comments for a while. Unlike you, I don’t claim to have a rigorous theory, only that I am confident that someone smarter than me will eventually get interested enough to connect the dots with a mathematical explanation that will have amazing predictive power. There are not many people who can actually formulate such beautiful theories. They are called geniuses.

  48. […] to J-S, consider the ‘Jose cycle‘ of 9 J-S: 9 J-S = 178.8532 y 7 BF = 178.85172 y The value of BF using J-S known value: […]

  49. […] between fingers of the hand is 35.76 years. – – – Re. the 179 year cycle: Gerry Pease Links Improved and Updated Solar-Planetary paper – Gerry Pease and Gregory […]

  50. oldbrew says:

    Every 179 years the Sun is right at the barycentre of the solar system.
    This checks out on Arnholm’s simulator for: 1453,1632,1811,1990,2069

    For the 1990 example TB said (December 7, 2016 at 7:48 am):
    ‘The key point here is that J in opposition to SUN puts the Sun’s centre close to the system barycentre.’

    Obviously all the planetary line-ups with the Sun must go through the barycentre at any time the Sun is positioned there.

    Solar Simulator: http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim2/index.html

  51. oldbrew says:

    Here’s the proof. The white line is the Sun’s motion from June 1811, just after it passed through the barycentre of the solar system, to April 1990 when it did so again.

    We can see there are only two lines at the crosshairs, one pointing left (1811) and one to the right (1990 approach). The next nearest lines are around 1850 and 1950 but not going through the centre.

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