Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
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.
|
Well, I think you really have to show that to us. As GR is a general theory of gravity I would be surprised if it worked on the core different than on the outer layers, because, in the limit you get Newton and that shows that gravity is only dependent on the mass inside the sphere of the location where you are.
It is like so many ATM proposals, they sound nice if you write up stuff in words, might even make some sense, but then getting a real calculation, well that takes more than the 30 days a thread is open.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
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.
|
Sure you do have a problem. You want something that regular solar models do not have, and they still work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
Are you referring to the multiply by 0.10?
|
No, I am not, you write:
Finally, you can multiply the COM movements in the N-S direction after multiplying by 0.10.
I am not talking about that 0.1 I am talking about you multiplying the COM movements. There is no such thing, movement is velocity. Velocity is a vector which you can either add to another, or take the inner (dot) product (giving you a scalar) or take the outer (cross) product (giving you a vector perpendicular to both multiplied vectors). So, what are you multiplying here and in what way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
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.
|
but not what you wrote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
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.
|
That is nonsense, you can do math without numbers. That is why we invented math, you use symbols. Then you can put in numbers, after it has been checked that your symbolic manipulation is correct, and then we get some estimates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
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?
|
I think not, because of what we know of the Sun through helioseismology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
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?
|
No, it does not, however, people are working on dynamo models that are getting better and better. I am not up to date with the current state (maybe
Papageno knows about that) and how sunspot come into the model, apart from buoyancy of the magnetic field etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
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.
|
You have show correlations, you have not shown a model and calculations, there is a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
It will give an average of sqrt(2)/2 or 0.707 times as much.
That is because I am the first person to mention it.
|
That is the average value of sin
2?
I doubt you are the first person to mention the amplitude of the tide on the Sun created by Jupiter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
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.
|
Why wait for my permission? Do the calculation that I showed for light for a massive particle, and then you can convince all people here on the board. And please, then also show that the fact that the particles are relativistic is important (or would the same happen for a non relativistic particle?). I am not going to do that job for you, it was bad enough that I had to give the equations for photons, whereas it is supposed to be your job to give the equations and explanations. I did it, because I needed to correct my mistake, so that was okay, now you are in the ballpark.
Take a particle of rest mass m
0 and fly it by the sun at velocity v and look at what Newtonian gravity would give as a deflection. Note that you can do this for a general particle at any velocity v, as the mass will just be γ m
0, with γ the Lorentz factor.
Then do the same thing for general relativistic stuff, and then compare the two deflections. I am afraid though that you will no longer be able to work in the small deflection limit, but that should not be a problem.
Have fun