Quote:
Originally Posted by tusenfem
rtomes, the force is not only working on the core, it is working on the whole Sun. So it would be lifted by Jupiter in it entirety. Why would only the core be influenced?
|
The actual effect is an increased acceleration (by a factor of 5/3) of
the radiation and other relativistic mass contents. As previously explained, there is a
differential between the effect on the core and the surface because
the proportion of the mass that is radiation and relativistic mass is varying with temperature as you move from the core to the surface.
At the surface the proportion that is radiation and relativistic mass is only a tiny fraction of what it is in the core.
Quote:
|
I am impressed by your math, thank you.
|
You are welcome.
Quote:
|
Sorry, but you bring up this ATM stuff, so it is REALLY your problem.
|
I don't have a problem. I have shown that there is a physical effect that is to be expected even though it has been ignored previously. To have correct models of the Sun requires incorporating this effect.
Quote:
|
HUH? multiply the movements? I thought that motion was a vector quantity, so you should add them up to start with. And once again, the force works on the whole sun not just the interior.
|
Are you referring to the multiply by 0.10?
If so, then that is the component of the acceleration vector in the polar direction. It is multiplication of a vector (the acceleration of matter in the Sun by Jupiter for example) by a scalar (the sine of the angle between the plane of the Sun's orbit and the direction of Jupiter at that time) to get a vector (the component of the acceleration out of the plane of the Sun's equator). That is quite proper maths.
Before you can do maths you have to have a decription of what is happening. The maths comes later. But as I have pointed out, the necessary information to put into the maths is not available with sufficient accuracy. Therefore the results are only order of magnitude results. But the order of magnitude is sufficient to explain temperature variations of the order of those observed over the Solar cycle.
Quote:
|
You keep on forgetting, rtomes that the convection region is THE region for you to work on, because that is where the magnetic field is generated, NOT in the core. Read up on dynamo theory. Sunspots are related to the magnetic field.
|
So wouldn't it be the case that if the zone presently thought to be only radiative was found to have a slight convection which changed direction with the sunspot cycle then the convection would be expected to be altered?
Does the present model of the sun produce an actual result that predicts the sunspot cycle? If so what period does it predict? If the present model is useful, does it predict that the sunspot cycle varies in magnitude and period from cycle to cycle? Do you not think that there is some room for improvement in that model?
Quote:
|
I do not denigrate correlations, I use cross correlations all the time in my job. But correlation is not causation!!!!!!!!!! No matter how high the regression coefficient is, only when you have a model/process that would explain the correlation do you have something handfast. You can find numerous correlations on the internet that map e.g. the selling of red cars to the phase of the moon, or whatever.
|
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22se...22&btnG=Search
Sadly not.
However you misrepresent what I am doing. I gave reasons why existing standard physics expects such an effect of the planets on the Sun. Then I showed that the periodicities found in the Sun match those that are predicted by such standard physics.
Then I showed that the phase and amplitude of such cycles have a strong correlation only if there is a natural resonance in the Sun of 10.5 years. I would suggest that such a result might be found within standard magnetic theory of the Sun. If it cannot, then standard physics cannot explain the sunspot cycle. If it can, then my explanation allos the variations in the sunspot cycle length and amplitude to be able to be understood far more clearly than ever before. And also potentially predicted more accurately.
Quote:
|
Yeah, but over those six years it will have an increasing angle from zero to maximum to zero again. Integrating this to get an average I think, if I am correct from the top of my head, this will decrease your effect by a factor 1/3 (but please check it for yourself).
|
It will give an average of sqrt(2)/2 or 0.707 times as much.
This was all correctly allowed for in my computer program calculations of the effect over a number of centuries because I calculated the vetors at regular intervals. It is all built in to that final 0.66 correlation that I mentioned.
Quote:
|
And I know you like Fourier, but only on average is the sunspot cycle 11 years, how does your Jupiter pulling handle that? You certainly will be in trouble mapping the Maunder minimum (or did the planets suddenly have no influence on the Sun at that period?) etc. etc.
|
As I have already answered other people, the Maunder minimum could be understood as the phase of the planetary forces being opposed in phase to the natural rhythm of the Sun (which I calculate to be 10.5 years). That means that it reduces the amplitude of the natural oscillation. Such events will happen from time to time, but are less common because the amplitude-phase diagram is 2-dimensional and it requires the two dimensions (the sine and cosine components) to both go to near zero at the same time.
Quote:
Yes, those are the tidal forces workin on the sun as a whole. I am not sure about the amplitude, I found a quote from an
Icarus paper (J. Meeus, Icarus 26, 257-267, 1975) that the amplitude was millimeters. The paper basically debunks the book "the Jupiter effect" of which this thread is only a part of the that book. Unfortunately, I do not have the pdf at the moment.
|
Even the author of the Jupiter Effect has acknowledged it as wrong.
I am not arguing for the tidal forces, so that is not relevant to my case. However the tidal forces do get things partly right. I suggest that you see the NASA paper quoted earlier and the site of about this that I quoted in my very first post.
Quote:
|
And here is another paper showing no influence on solar activity from the planets.
|
Well isn't it strange that over all the recorded period, the J-V-E syzygies do match the solar peaks? And J-V-E are the three strongest tidal planets. And this calculation predicts a bimodal distribution with peaks at 10.4 and 12.0 years, just as the actual cycle has. If they could find no correlations then they didn't look at the data the right way.
Quote:
|
Unfortunately, I cannot find a direct (visible) reference to the amplitude of the tide on the Sun created by Jupiter.
|
That is because I am the first person to mention it.
Quote:
|
I do not see why I should do the work for you, define your "relativistic mass" yourself.
|
I already did. The relativistic mass component is the difference between the total mass of the components in a single reference frame and the sum of the masses of the components in their individual reference frames. That definition includes radiation and relativistic mass increase of matter. The single reference frame used will be the centre of the Sun near enough. To be perfectly precise it will be in the reference frame of a region of matter and radiation in the sun.
Quote:
so in the end: words words words.
wake me up when you have a real mathematical model Ray, till then, see you later.
|
I have now fully described all of the calculations that need to be done.
You have acknowledged the 2x effect on horizontal photons (in the low field case). Do you also acknowledge the same factor for matter at relativistic velocities? Based on your answer I will again list the exact calculations to be done.