## Trappist-1: seven-planet resonance chain confirmed

Posted: May 26, 2017 by oldbrew in Astronomy, Astrophysics, research
Tags: , ,

Much media attention on this new paper this week. Is there a surprise lurking in the details now that the orbit period of the seventh planet has been confirmed?.

What the numbers in the diagram show is the orbits per planet in a fixed period (top row), the conjunctions per planet pair in the same period (second row), and the ratios that represents (third row).

The number of conjunctions of any two planets is the difference between the two orbit numbers in a given period, which in this case is equivalent to just under 1446 Earth days (see data below).

Apart from the obvious symmetry of the ratios, something else arose from the science paper.

## Another dip into solar-planetary theory

Posted: February 24, 2017 by oldbrew in modelling, solar system dynamics
Tags:

A bust of George Ellery Hale at Palomar Observatory [image credit: Visitor 7 / Wikipedia]

This is an extended re-write of the earlier post on this topic. The purpose is to explain the Jose cycle chart shown below (in blue).
– – –
The Hale cycle is the time taken for solar magnetic polarity to return to its initial state (i.e. two ~11-year cycles: one north, one south), so the two reversals of polarity take around 22 years.
http://www.leif.org/research/Extended-Solar-Cycle.pdf

Estimates of mean solar (Hale) cycle length:
‘Finally, we recover a 22.14-year cycle of the solar dynamo in the framework of a reduced zero-dimensional a-s dynamo model.’ – Stefani et al.

N. Scafetta re JEV: The 22.14 yr period is very close to the ~22 yr Hale solar magnetic cycle
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.0193.pdf

I. Wilson (2012)
A Planetary Spin-Orbit Coupling Model for Solar Activity
Hence, the basic unit of change in the Sun’s rotation rate (i.e. an increase followed by a decrease) is 2 x 11.07 years = 22.14 years. This is essentially equal to the mean length of the Hale magnetic sunspot cycle of the Sun which is 22.1 +/- 2.0 yrs).
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/planetary-spin-orbit-coupling-model-for.html

The aim here is to link the Hale cycle to the planetary movements of Jupiter and Saturn.
(more…)

## A dip into solar-planetary theory

Posted: February 12, 2017 by oldbrew in solar system dynamics
Tags:

Solar system [credit: BBC]

The details of interest here are:
Jupiter’s orbit period (J): 11.862615 years
Jupiter-Saturn conjunction period (J-S): 19.865036 years (mean value)
Solar Hale cycle (HC): ~22.14 years (estimated mean value)

Looking for a solar-planetary beat frequency (BF):
28 J = 332.15322 years
15 HC = 332.1 years
28 – 15 = 13 = number of beats in the period

Since Jupiter’s orbit period is a known value:
BF (approx.) = 332.15322 / 13 = 25.550247 y

Turning to J-S, consider the ‘Jose cycle‘ of 9 J-S:
9 J-S = 178.78532 y
7 BF = 178.85172 y
The value of BF using J-S known value:
178.78532 / 7 = 25.54076 y

Percent match of the two BF values = > 99.96%

Result – on the basis of the selected Hale cycle period:
Jupiter’s orbit matches the calculated solar-planetary beat frequency in the ratio 28:13.
For the Jose cycle (9 J-S conjunctions) the equivalent ratio is 9:7.
The Hale cycle ratio is 13 BF:15 HC by the above definitions.

Conclusion: this beat frequency connects the three items of interest as described.

(Note: 9 J-S figure updated 14/02/17 due to a typo).

## The Planets have control of Solar variability

Posted: January 17, 2017 by oldbrew in solar system dynamics
Tags:

The Sun and the gas giant planets [credit: Wikipedia]

Interesting recent research from Norway on solar-planetary theory introduced by one of the authors, Harald Yndestad.
H/T Tallbloke

The planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune affect irradiation variability from the sun

Published: 20.aug. 2016 New Astronomy

By Harald Yndestad a), og Jan-Erik Solheim b)

a) Norwegian University of Science and Technology Aalesund, Aalesund 6025, Norway
b) Department of Physics and Technology UiT The Arctic, University of Norway, Tromsø 9037, Norway

Highlights
Deterministic periods: Data series of total radiation (TSI) from the sun, has stationary periodic changes over 1000 years.
Cause: The periods are controlled by the four giant planets: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
Explanation: There is a mutual gravitation between the sun and the planets that change circulation in Sun’s interior dynamo.
Harmonic periods: Planets periods and combination resonance between periods produces a range of stationary periods from about 11 to 500 years, and more
Impact: The sum of the period affects the sun’s surface and alter the radiation from the sun and climate on Earth.
Historic Climate Change: The identified periods explains known cold climate periods Oort (1010-1030), Wolf (1270-1349), Spurs (1390-1550), Maunder (1640-1720) and Dalton (1790-1820)
Modern climate: We have had a modern maximum period (1940-2015) with radiation.
Prognosis: We are entering a period with less radiation, a “colder” sunny, with a calculated at a minimum of Dalton-level of approximately (2040-2065).

## Re-visiting one of the PRP papers

Posted: January 15, 2017 by oldbrew in Cycles, modelling, research, solar system dynamics
Tags: ,

Jupiter-Saturn-Earth orbits chart

Browsing through some of the PRP papers I came across this at the end of the introduction to R.J. Salvador’s paper – A mathematical model of the sunspot cycle for the past 1000 yr:

Another well-known oscillation found in solar records is
the de Vries cycle of 208 yr (see McCracken et al., 2013).
The frequency of 1253 yr, together with the Jose frequency of
178.8 yr, produces a beat of 208 yr and is used in the model.

Looking back at this Talkshop post from 2014 I wondered if these numbers could be linked to it.

From the chart [top line: ‘2503 E’] I’d suggest the ‘frequency of 1253 years’ could be the half-period of the 2503 year cycle i.e. 1251.5 years, a difference of only 0.0012%.

With the ‘Jose frequency of 178.8 years’ being the mean period of 9 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions (by definition), we see from the chart that 1251.5 years would be 63 J-S, since it’s half the full period of 2503 years or 126 J-S [= 63 * 2].

Therefore the two periods would be in a simple ratio of 1:7.
(more…)

## First Binary-Binary Solar System Discovered

Posted: November 7, 2016 by oldbrew in Astrophysics
Tags: ,

A ‘normal’ binary system

Have fun trying to imagine how this solar system works, as iTech Post describes its unusual structure.

Astronomers have discovered the first binary-binary solar system. The discovery is said to have implications on the way people perceive the solar system was formed.

The discovered solar system has two stars as well and a planet revolving. The new binary system has been named HD 87646. It is made up of one star, a brown dwarf star, and a massive planet, according to Science Daily. The large planet is 12 times the mass of Jupiter while the brown dwarf is 57 times the mass of Jupiter. The two are in close proximity as well to the primary star.

What makes the system interesting is that it defies what people know how a solar system is. Typically astronomers think that the solar system formed out of a disk dust cloud, with the large outer planets farther out from the primary star. Yet with HD 87646 the objects are far closer than how the outer planets are in our solar system.

## New theory explains how the moon got there

Posted: November 2, 2016 by oldbrew in Celestial Mechanics, moon, solar system dynamics
Tags: ,

A key point of the new theory is that as the Moon migrated outwards from Earth, its orbit reached a critical distance where the Sun’s gravitational influence overtook that of the Earth, as Phys.org explains. Needless to say there’s more to it than that.

Earth’s Moon is an unusual object in our solar system, and now there’s a new theory to explain how it got where it is, which puts some twists on the current “giant impact” theory. The work is published Oct. 31 in the journal Nature.

The Moon is relatively big compared to the planet it orbits, and it’s made of almost the same stuff, minus some more volatile compounds that evaporated long ago. That makes it distinct from every other major object in the Solar System, said Sarah Stewart, professor of earth and planetary sciences at the University of California, Davis and senior author on the paper.

“Every other body in the solar system has different chemistry,” she said.

## Are planets setting the Sun’s pace?

Posted: October 4, 2016 by oldbrew in Solar physics, solar system dynamics
Tags:

Variation in solar activity during a recent sunspot cycle [credit: Wikipedia]

Here we are told that ‘Researchers…are putting forward a new theory’ which may be amusing to Talkshop regulars and others who have been discussing and investigating such matters for years, but – better late than never for the rest of the science world!

The Sun’s activity is determined by the Sun’s magnetic field. Two combined effects are responsible for the latter: The omega and the alpha effect. Exactly where and how the alpha effect originates is currently unknown.

Researchers at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR) are putting forward a new theory for this in the journal Solar Physics. Their calculations suggest that tidal forces from Venus, the Earth and Jupiter can directly influence the Sun’s activity.

Many questions regarding the Sun’s magnetic field are still unanswered. “As with the Earth, we are dealing with a dynamo. Through self-excitation, a magnetic field is created from virtually nothing, whereby the complex movement of the conductive plasma serves as an energy source,” says the physicist Dr. Frank Stefani from HZDR.

The Sun’s so-called alpha-omega dynamo is subject to a regular cycle. Approximately every eleven years the polarity of the Sun’s magnetic field is reversed, with solar activity peaking with the same frequency.

This manifests itself in an increase in sunspots — dark patches on the Sun’s surface which originate from strongly concentrated magnetic fields. “Interestingly, every 11.07 years, the Sun and the planets Venus, the Earth and Jupiter are aligned. We asked ourselves: Is it a coincidence that the solar cycle corresponds with the cycle of the conjunction or the opposition of the three planets?” ponders Stefani.

Although this question is by no means new, up to now scientists could not identify a plausible physical mechanism for how the very weak tidal effects of Venus, the Earth and Jupiter could influence the Sun’s dynamo.
Talkshop comment: Unless they came across some of Ian Wilson’s research perhaps?

Strengthening through resonance
“If you only just give a swing small pushes, it will swing higher with time,” as Frank Stefani explains the principle of resonance. He and his team discovered in recent calculations that the alpha effect is prone to oscillations under certain conditions. “The impulse for this alpha-oscillation requires almost no energy. The planetary tides could act as sufficient pace setters for this.”

The so-called Tayler instability plays a crucial role for the resonance of the Sun’s dynamo. It always arises when a strong enough current flows through a conductive liquid or a plasma. Above a certain strength, the interaction of the current with its own magnetic field generates a flow — in the case of the colossal Sun, a turbulent one.

It is generally understood that the solar dynamo relies on the interaction of two induction mechanisms. Largely undisputed is the omega effect, which originates in the tachocline. This is the name of a narrow band between the Sun’s inner radiative zone and the outer areas in which convection takes place, where heat is transported using the movement of the hot plasma. In the tachocline, various, differentially rotating areas converge. This differential rotation generates the so-called toroidal magnetic field in the form of two “life belts” situated north and south of the solar equator.

[Talkshop note: see link below for further details]

## Why Phi? – solar rotation notes

Posted: February 6, 2016 by oldbrew in Fibonacci, Phi, solar system dynamics
Tags:

Carrington Rotations = CarRots [credit: dreamstime.com]

Tallbloke recently acquired a book by Hartmut Warm called ‘Signature of the Celestial Spheres: Discovering Order in the Solar System’ which offers this gem:
588 solar Carrington rotations (CarRots) = 587 lunar sidereal months
We’ll call this the HW cycle, about 43.91 years.

‘Richard Christopher Carrington determined the solar rotation rate from low latitude sunspots in the 1850s and arrived at 25.38 days for the sidereal rotation period. Sidereal rotation is measured relative to the stars, but because the Earth is orbiting the Sun, we see this period as 27.2753 days.’ – Wikipedia

Picking this ball up and running with it, we find there are 308 CarRots (27.2753 d) per 331 solar sidereal days (25.38 d) in 23 years (331 – 308). This period, or a multiple of it, can be found in certain identified solar-planetary cycles (as discussed below).

## Why Phi? – Jupiter, Saturn and the de Vries cycle

Posted: April 17, 2015 by oldbrew in Cycles, Fibonacci, solar system dynamics
Tags: , ,

Jupiter dominates the solar system

By far the two largest bodies in our solar system are Jupiter and Saturn. In terms of angular momentum: ‘That of Jupiter contributes the bulk of the Solar System’s angular momentum, 60.3%. Then comes Saturn at 24.5%, Neptune at 7.9%, and Uranus at 5.3%’ (source), leaving only 2% for everything else. Jupiter and Saturn together account for nearly 85% of the total.

The data tell us that for every 21 Jupiter-Saturn (J-S) conjunctions there are 382 Jupiter-Earth (J-E) conjunctions and 403 Saturn-Earth (S-E) conjunctions (21 + 382 = 403).

Since one J-S conjunction moves 117.14703 degrees retrograde from the position of the previous one, the movement of 21 will be 21 x 117.14703 = 2460.0876, or 2460 degrees as a round number.

The nearest multiple of a full rotation of 360 degrees to 2460 is 2520 (= 7 x 360).
Therefore 21 J-S has a net movement of almost 60 degrees (2520 – 2460) from its start position.

## Sir Harold Jeffreys and Leif Svalgaard: Expert opinion on Continental Drift and Solar Variablity

Posted: January 25, 2013 by tallbloke in Astrophysics, geothermal, Natural Variation, Uncertainty
Tags: ,

In a Bishop Hill discussion about some very dodgy stats methods the mainstream cli-sci community is using, this nice little factoid popped up from commenter ‘dearieme’:

The Jeffreys Prior: fine, but one must be careful not to follow Sir Harold in all his science.

From Wikipedia: Jeffreys was a strong opponent of continental drift. For him, continental drift was “out of the question” because no force even remotely strong enough to move the continents across the Earth’s surface was evident.

GPS measured global plate motion. Source: Wikipedia commons

Which put me in mind of those solar scientists such as Leif Svalgaard who say that planetary effects on the Sun are “out of the question because no force from the planets even remotely strong enough to affect the Sun is evident”.

Which led me to wonder if consideration of the forces which move continents around might throw up any ideas about the planetary-solar connection. What I discovered on Wikipedia’s plate tectonics page is that the question of what the forces are, and how strong they are relative to each other is very much an open question and a hot subject of ongoing debate.

## Ian Wilson: Tidal-Torque model of Solar-Planetary Interaction

Posted: November 25, 2012 by tallbloke in Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cycles, Solar physics, solar system dynamics, Tides
Tags: , , , ,

My thanks to Ian Wilson for an update on his tidal-torquing model, which relates the motion of Venus, Earth and Jupiter to changes in sunspot numbers and the flows observed on the Solar surface. This elegant solution looks very promising in terms of forecasting solar variation, as well as offering a hypothesis explaining a mechanism underlying the strong correlations between solar variation and planetary motion. The following article is reposted from Ian’s excellent blog.

THE UPDATED V-E-J TIDAL TORQUING MODEL
Ian Wilson : November 2012

The problem with the collective blog postings about the
Spin-Orbit Coupling or Tidal-Torquing Model that are described
at the end of this post is that they only look at the tidal-torquing
(i.e. the pushing and pulling of Jupiter upon the Venus-Earth
tidal bulge in the Solar convective zone) when Venus and Earth
are inferior conjunction (i.e. when Venus and Earth are on the
same side of the Sun). However, a tidal bulge is also produced
when Venus and the Earth align on opposites sides of the Sun,
as well (i.e at superior conjunction).

This means that in the real world, tidal bulges are induced in
the convective layer of the Sun once every 0.8 years rather
than every 1.6 years, as assumed in the original basic model.
This is achieved by a sequence of alternating conjunctions
of Venus and the Earth:

## Warren de la Rue, Balfour Stewart and Benjamin Loewy: Planetary Influence on Solar Activity

Posted: November 6, 2012 by tallbloke in Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cycles, Electro-magnetism, Energy, Forecasting, Natural Variation, Solar physics, solar system dynamics, Tides
Tags: , ,

I came across this old paper, which may turn out to be very important. Balfour Stewart was head of solar research at Kew Observatory in the latter part of the C19th. This study demonstrates an effect of the planets on the size of sunspots, which may be connected with gravitationl, tidal and electro-magnetic forces interactions operating in the heliosphere.

## What is the solar – planetary theory?

Posted: January 15, 2010 by tallbloke in Astrophysics, solar system dynamics
Tags: , , ,

A lot of people might visit here, see some fairly technical conversation going on, and wonder, “What’s it all about?” So I thought I’d devote a thread to explaining what we mean when we refer to ‘solar – planetary theory’. This thread is a first attempt at clearly summarizing it, and I hope a stimulating discussion will follow so that we can refine the hastily written outline presented here.

In a nutshell, it is the hypothesis that the solar system is a system in the fullest sense of the word. That is: As well as the sun having a big effect on the planets (warming them with it’s radiation, keeping them in their orbits with it’s gravity, warding off a lot of the galactic cosmic rays from entering with it’s solar wind etc), the planets also have an effect on each other, and on the sun, causing it’s complicated motion around the centre of mass of the solar system, modulating solar magnetic activity and the production of sunspots.

Issac Newton in his famous book ‘Principia Mathematica’ described the motion of the sun around the centre of mass, but held the opinion that ‘the sun feels no forces’ because according to his theory of Gravitation, the sun would be ‘in free-fall’.

So why do proponents of solar-planetary theory think the planets can affect the sun?

Firstly, Newton, although he quantified the gravitational force, didn’t try to explain what gravity was, or how it has it’s affect on matter. “I frame no hypotheses” he famously said. He lived in an age when ‘Natural Philosophy’ was trying to escape ideas which involved ‘action at a distance’. But gravity seemed to be an ‘action at a distance’ force par exellence.

Secondly, Newtons laws of motion deal with idealized objects which are homogenous, rigid, and free of frictional and other forces. We don’t know much about the interior of the sun, but we do know it’s surface layers are much less dense than it’s deeper layers, and that the density gradient from surface to core may not be linear. We also know the surface layers are highly mobile and fluid, and are highly magnetized. This means the sun might get jiggled around internally as it moves in it’s complicated dance around the solar system barycenter.

Thirdly, there appear to be correlations between changes in solar activity (particularly sunspot number) and the inter-related motions of the planets over the course of time. Paul D. Jose in his 1965 paper showed a coincidence between the changes in the sun’s angular momentum as it jiggled around the solar sytem’s center of mass, and the number of sunspots appearing on it’s surface.

So what’s the problem? Why is this a controversial area of research?

If the planets affect the sun, and the sun affects Earth’s climate, discovering how it works might alter the way we view climate change. Small changes in the Earth’s motion coincide with changes in climate, and Paul Vaughan has been discovering some very good correlations between these climate factors and changes in Earth’s motion caused by the other planets and the sun. Petr ‘semi’  Semerad has discovered that changes in Venus and  Earth’s angular momentum coincide with the ~11 year sunspot cycles. Geoff Sharp has discovered the big outer planets move in a rhythm coinciding with drops in solar activity every ~178 years, the size of which depend on the phase of the sunspot cycle when the sudden changes in angular momentum of the sun occur.

Another problem is that just like Newton didn’t know how gravity worked (and we still don’t), we don’t yet know for sure what the mechanisms are by which the planetary motions affect the sun and individual planets, although we have a pretty good body of evidence to show they do.  Several possible mechanisms have been put forward, and investigations using the available data are ongoing. These include three main areas covered by posts on this blog:

Tidal forces, similar to the tidal effects of the Moon on the Earth.

Gravitational effects on the angular momentum of different parts of the sun as it revolves in it’s peculiar orbit around the centre of mass or ‘Barycenter’ of the solar system (SSB for short).

Electromagnetic effects due to interactions between the solar and interplanetary magnetic fields and the magnetospheres of several of the planets.

Some physicists dismiss these possibilities because they believe the forces involved would be too small to have any effect on the sun. Proponents of the solar- planetary theory disagree, and believe that the possibilities must be quantified, predictions made and tests performed before the hypothesis can be falsified.

What form could these tests take?
What resources are required?
Who’s going to fund a program of investigation?

Answers on a postcard, or just add your thoughts or questions below.