Thanks Robert Tulip. I'll get you a Carnation.

The simplest way to get the actual effects on the Sun is to consider the motion of the Sun about the COM of the Solar system and adjust from there. If the centre of the Sun were 100% radiation or relativistic mass content then it would try to move about by 5/3 times as much as the COM. However the component of this motion in the plane of the Sun's equator is cancelled by rotation and has very littel effect.

The component in the N-S direction is reduced by a factor of 10 because the gas giants orbits are inclined by about 6 degrees to the solar equator. Here comes some maths :-) sin(6 degrees) = 0.10 near enough. That means that the N-S motion of the core would be quite substantial, but ...

The part that is most difficult to quantify is the relativistic mass content of the Sun. This is not my problem, but a problem in Solar theory. There is not a good agreement about the time it takes radiation to get from the solar core to the surface. This time is needed to combine with the rate at which radiant energy is leaving the Sun to determine the radiation content. I have seen figures that vary from 10,000 to 10,000,000 years, which is not a lot of help. In the thread that I referred to recently on this question a figure of 170,000 years was mentioned. However this is still possibly not accurate. Additionally it does seem that the matter reltivistic mass content needs to be included and this is more substantial. The answer to an order of magnitude is given in that thread.

Finally, you can multiply the COM movements in the N-S direction after multiplying by 0.10 by this rather uncertain proportion to get the motion of the Solar interior. (more below)
Certainly. Existing models of the Sun do not incorporate this effect and assume thatb there is no convection below a certain depth. I did note that since I first proposed this it has been discovered that the actual convection depth is deeper than expected as I would have expected.

Of course this convection must be incorporated into the existing models because it affects heat flow and there will be feedbacks.
Well it isn't handwaving to show that existing physics does expect this factor to be significant and it should be allowed for in models. It is a known fact that solar models do not actually work totally correctly.

If you denigrate correlations then you denigrate science. That is all science is.
Jupiter remains above and below the solar equator for 6 years at a time. Its 11.86 year orbital cycle does show up in the sunspot cycle Fourier analysis along with other periods.
That puny Jupiter force is sufficient to cause a motion of several kilometers in the solar core over a siz year period. However the calculation depends on the correct relativistic mass content of the Sun which is not known very accurately. If you tell me what that is accurately I will tell the accurate answer.

This "cycle" of 179 years is not really a cycle. After a couple of 179 year cycles you have to insert a 159 year cycle to keep the Uranus-Neptune conjunction working. It has to average 171 years.

Also, you cannot in fact match the peaks and troughs in your barycentre motion with the Sunspot cycle. That is because the dominant cycles in the COM motion are 11.86 years for Jupiter's period and 19.86 years for the Jupiter-Saturn lap. The Sunspot cycle averages 11.08 years over a long period which means that it goes in and out of phase with the 11.86 year period of Jupiter about every 170 years.

Marking some extremes that agrees with the graph as being sunspot minima at ~170 year intervals is meaningless because half way between these those same dips are sunspot maxima. The COM hypothesis does gove some long term periods which appear to agree with climate cycles, but it certainly does not produce the 11.08 year sunspot cycle.

Also, if you think about the COM of the Sun and Galaxy, then the COM is way outside the Sun all the time and moves about by huge amounts as we orbit the galaxy. Is this incorporated in the COM model? Why not? The thing is that the COM idea does not actually provide a real mechanism as the Sun is in free fall. Only tidal forces (relating to changes in that rate of fall) actually do something physical to the Sun (namely stretch it).

The effects that I am pointing out are real effects according to standard physics. If they are not included then the wrong answer must result. Many people just assume that such effects must be negligable and never even calculate them to see. The thing is that the time^2 factor in s=(1/2)*a*t^2 causes a huge affect when t=6 or more years for the outer planets. That needs to be balanced with the forces being so tiny.

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?

I am impressed by your math, thank you.

Sorry, but you bring up this ATM stuff, so it is REALLY your problem.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

And here is another paper showing no influence on solar activity from the planets.

Unfortunately, I cannot find a direct (visible) reference to the amplitude of the tide on the Sun created by Jupiter.

I do not see why I should do the work for you, define your "relativistic mass" yourself.

so in the end: words words words.
wake me up when you have a real mathematical model Ray, till then, see you later.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

I don’t understand this ‘insertion’ idea. You may be right Ray, but it looks to me like the 179 year pattern is permanent, a slowly shifting cosmic constant number, but there is also a longer sub-trend caused by the JSN interaction with Uranus. Maybe I haven’t looked at the data properly but I don’t see the 159 year pattern. It looks to me, including from the 1350 years of data you provided privately, that the 179 year pattern is permanent but there is also a longer periodic secondary cycle caused by the 171 year Uranus-Neptune cycle, which just make the secondary bumps (1505, 1610, 1650, 1690, 1790, 1830, 1972, 2010) which drift forward on average 8 years per cycle due to the difference with the main 179 year period. So, are you saying the historic records of correlations between the Jupiter-Saturn cycle and the sunspots shown in the attachment to my post is just an artifact? ie that this Jupiter Saturn shape may appear in each 179 year pattern but will drift away from alignment to sunspot minima? How do you know the sunspot minima dates over longer period than the recorded dates since 1600? So what? The maxima are in periods when the sun is moving fastest, the minima I pointed to are when sun is at COM station. This data shows identical patterns in two barycentric cycles. Are you claiming there is data for future and past sunspot minima which would falsify my claim? Surely you cannot incorporate the galaxy in short term cycles given that the Sun-galaxy COM would surely have phase measured in the millions of years rather than decades? I am not saying you are wrong Ray, just that the 1714-1728 and 1886-1914 similarities I depicted at http://www.bautforum.com/attachments...ulip190408.gif leapt out of the data to me, and I am just wondering if you can prove it is an artifact and not a causal factor.

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.
You are welcome.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is because I am the first person to mention it.
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.
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.

For those interested in my hypothesis, this does not relate to it. It relates to the COM hypothesis which has some correlation with my hypothesis but has no actual physics meaning as far as I can tell. I will not be continuing with this discussion as it is not the subject of the thread.

The main difference in effect between my hypothesis and the COM hypothesis is that it is not the actual conjunctions but the N-S movement of the planets that is important. Because the important planets orbits are inclined in a similar way to the Sun's axis, this is a subtle difference, except that only conjunctions near the position of maximum inclination are important, those near the nodes are not.

I suggest that for simplicity you start with a supposed perfect alignment of J-S-U-N and assume circular orbits and work forward in time. You will find that U-N align every 171.4 years. If you use a 178.9 year cycle,you will miss this conjnction by 7.5 years. If you keep doing that you add error to error and after 10 cycles the error is 75 years, which means that rather than having a U-N conjunction they are almost on opposite sides of the Sun. So quite clearly you cannot have a J-S-U-N conjunction when U and N are so far apart.

I repeat again what I said earlier. After one or two 179 year periods you have to use a 159 year period to keep U and N in step. Because of the 19.86 year J-S conjunction period both of these periods are good conjunctions of the 4 planets. This is all quite evident in the graph that you posted when you look at the double wiggles.

Also, if you follow that conjunctions of J-S-U-N through a 2300 year cycle period you will find that there is a long period in that cycle where there are no good 4 planet conjunctions at all.
Your post does not show a correlation between J-S and the sunspots. It shows a small number of points that you say are or might be in step. I already suggested that in between those small number of points the phase is in fact exactly opposite. Is that not clear. You cannot have an 11.08 year cycle remaining in step with either an 11.86 year cycle or a 19.86 year cycle. That is a simple mathematical fact.

However if you do a Fourier analysis of the Sunspot cycle you will find these components (well you will find components near 11.86 years and 9.93 years = 19.86 years /2). But you will find that the 11.08 year cycle is stronger than either.
If you go through just one of your supposed 179 year cycles, and count how many sunspot maxima you are predicting and compare to the actual number observed, you will see that the COM hypothesis does not say anything at all about the actual observed sunspot cycle. If you dispute this, then please show a graph or table with the peaks labelled and the years shows against the years of sunpot maxima or minima.
Well, it matters not how long the period is. If the COM ois an important concept then it would still work. But the COm would then be way way outside the Sun. The people that write on this think that the COM going outside the Sun or going retrograde is important. That conceot depends on a selection of bodies to include which has no indepedent physics meaning.
As I said. Count the number of peaks between these and show how they relate to the number of sunspoit cycle peaks.

In an email the following recent NASA paper was mentioned to me. It seems that NASA study of planetary connections to Sunspots is alive and well.
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330

Thanks Ray, in JimP’s chart of sunspots against barycentre, you can clearly see the minima alignment to the 178.9 year cycle. I take your point that this is not proof of a physical connection, given that the average sunspot period here (178.35 years) is half a year less than the SSB cycle, producing a very small drift forward of sunspots against each SSB cycle. Comparing the periods 1734-1755 = 1913-1933 you can see the SSB and sunspot minima are both directly aligned to the Jupiter-Saturn cycle. I think this is worth further study. The data for these patterns are here.

Well I don't know about these dates for minima in the first column. Here is the wikipedia graph of sunspots over the period and you can see that you need a good imagination to fit them.


Whatever, you are producing only 15 cycles in 178 years. That is an average of 11.86 years which is Jupiter's period around the Sun. It certainly is the correct measure of the dominant period in the COM motion. However it is not the correct period for the sunspot cycle. The average period is much nearer to 178 / 16 = 11.1 years.

It should be added that the sunspot cycle does follow Jupiter's period (11.86 years) for a while and then races off and follows J-S conjunctions for a while (9.93 years) and then back again, averaging out at 11.08 years over the last 2500 years according to Schove's data.

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.

Sure you do have a problem. You want something that regular solar models do not have, and they still work.

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?

but not what you wrote.

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.

I think not, because of what we know of the Sun through helioseismology.

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.

You have show correlations, you have not shown a model and calculations, there is a difference.

That is the average value of sin²?

I doubt you are the first person to mention the amplitude of the tide on the Sun created by Jupiter.

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 m₀ 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 m₀, 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

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

You are not paying attention to what I write. I didn't say that GR worked differently on the core to the surface. I said that "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". You even quoted that.

Do you agree that the surface of the Sun is much cooler than the core?

Do you agree that the proportion of radiant energy to matter is less at the surface than at the core?

Do you agree that the average velocity of matter (due to temperature) is much lower near the surface than in the core?

Do you agree that therefore the relativistic mass content of the matter at the surface is less than at the core?

You have already agreed that GR acts of photons by twice as much as in Newtonian gravity in a low field. Well that twice as much applies to the photons in the centre of the Sun and at the surface, but the proportion of the Sun's mass in photons near the core is greater. Therefore the proportionate change in momentum that this 2x causes is greater in the core. That means that the core is accelerated differently.

If you don't get this, then you miss the whole point. It is a very important oart of the whole argument.
The problem is not the calculations. The problem is the logic is not getting across to you. You can't do the maths until the problem is understood.
Actually they don't. There is no solar model that can integrate the conditions either from the core to the surface or the other way and get a correct answer that works. Experts in the Sun have acknowledged this.

But that is beside the point. I am not proposing a new solar model. I am explaining a small effect that is standard physics and has previously been ignored. The reason for that has probably been that no-one ever thought about it, or if they did they assumed that it was insignificant.
This is the same point that you didn't get at the top of this post. I will explain it another way with some made up numbers.

Suppose at the core of the Sun we had 1 g of matter containing 0.001 g of radiation. Suppose that at the surface of the Sun we had 1 g of matter (it will have a much bigger volume, but that does not matter) containing 0.000001 g of radiation.

Now the GR effect applies to both lots of radiation. They are both accelerated towards Jupiter by 5/3 times as much as the matter.

So at the core, we have 1 g get 3 units of acceleration (for the sake of ease of calculation) and .001 g get 5 units of acceleration. So the combined mixture (which is interacting continuously to share its momentum) gets an acceleration of (1*3 + .001*5)/(1+.001)= 3.002 units of acceleration.

At the surface the 1 g gets 3 units of acceleration and the .000001 g of radiation gets 5 units of acceleration. So the combined mixture gets an acceleration of (1*3 + .000001*5)/(1+.000001)= 3.000002 units of acceleration.

The difference between these accelerations 0f .001998 units is what I have been referring to as the differential acceleration between the surface and the core. This is what the proposal is all about.
That is true. And I have provided all the mathematical information needed on the calculations. But if you want to do a perfect job you will have to incorporate a lot of complex stuff like how the proportion of radiation and matter varies with depth in the Sun and the temperature variation with depth and much more. That is all needed to fully solve the maths. But you can establish the order of magnitude of the effects without doing all of that.
That was my point. Through helioseismology the convection was found to go deeper than solar models said it would. That is what my explanation says will be the case (and did so before that was discovered).
Well I have given another means to make it better still.
Yes I have, but you have not understood an essential part of that. Hopefully that will be corrected by this post.
Yes.
This proposal is not about tides. That is not to say that tides are not relevant, but this is something different as I made clear in my first post.
I am not asking you to do any job for me.

Yes, the relativistic component of matter is important. Even though the velocities are much less than c (and so often people would say "non-relativistic"), the relativistic component of the matter is actually greater than the radiation content. This was dealt with by Ken G and others in the http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...s-surface.html thread. This established the ball park of the numbers involved even if it doesn't get highly precise figures.
You too.

I made a graph of the continuous series of Daily Sunspot Numbers (i.e. since late Dec 1848) with the Solar Latitude of the Solar System Barycentre (SSB) as well as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune continued a little way into the future (click image for larger version):


The horizontal scale is in 11 year intervals since 1845, the vertical scale for the planets and SSB is 0.2 radians per faint line from the centre line through the curves, and for sunspot numbers is 100 per faint line from the bottom.

One thing this shows clearly is how closely the SSB latitude is tied to Jupiter, and how the contribution from other planets also perturbing the Sun periodically causes the SSB to move away from Jupiter's latitude and back again, with some quite sharp deviations at times.

Perhaps rtomes could explain what his ideas say regarding the relationships graphed above?


Data sources for graph:
Daily sunspot data from SIDC.
Daily solar latitudes of the SSB and all planets calculated by the NASA JPL Horizons online ephemeris.

__________________
Carl Smith
The land of Oz

Hi Carl Smith

Thank you for presenting this data. Checking the actual results is always a good approach.

I originally used a longer data series, but of course the sunspot data gets less reliable as we go back further. However it might be necessary to use more data to confirm what I am saying.

I would like to check one thing also as it is very important. Is the latitude that you are using for the barycentre measured from the ecliptic or from the Sun's equatorial plane? If it is from the ecliptic then it is not the right measure, it must be from the Sun's rotational axis plane. As far as I can remember, the Sun's rotational axis plane is titled about 7.1 degrees to the ecliptic with an ascending node at 74 degrees longitude.

If your data is based on the Sun's rotational axis (or if you now get data that it is) then these are the steps to follow to replicate my study. I would also recommend using a longer period of time (even though the sunspot data is less reliable) because the resonance that I say must exist at about 10.5 years has a high Q factor and so is difficult to determine from a shorter data period. It also takes a while for the correct resonance amplitude and phase to get established at the start of the time period so having less accurate data there is not so serious.

You are then trying to explain the SS cycle based on the barycentre motion after putting it through a resonance function with period near 10.5 years and have to determine two variables by a regression equation (which is available in most spreadsheets). The variables are the period of the resonance and the Q factor.

It is not the actual barycentre displacement that has the ultimate effect as that is only the acceleration component and we want the displacement component of the solar core. That means integrating the barycentre displacement twice with respect to time. That also develops two integration constants which are unknown but can be set so that over a long period of time the solar core is wandering off out of the Sun. This is another reason why a longer series for the planetary forces is useful.

Of course the resulting solar core displacement is moving both sides of the solar equator, and each extreme is causing the same effect, so it is necessary to also allow for that by taking either the absolute value of the displacement or the square of it, to make both extremes have the same sign. Finally that value can be used as the predictor into the regression equation.

I do think that this is a most worthwhile exercise to produce a spreadsheet with the data, calculations, regression equations and graphs.

Ray

Ray, the latitude in the graph is relative to the solar equator, rather than the ecliptic, so it is correct for your purposes.

The NASA JPL Horizons Online Ephemeris has an option to output solar body centred ephemerides in solar body coordinates (longitude from ascending ecliptic node, equatorial latitude), making it quite easy to generate a time series for any planet or the SSB suitable for your purposes.

Carl.

__________________
Carl Smith
The land of Oz

Carl, thanks, I have not seen a graph of planetary solar latitudes before, just looking at vertical rather than horizontal cycles. It is interesting to see the erratic SSB latitude movements in 1950 and 1992. I hope you and Ray won't mind if I ask some dumb questions about the Y axis. When planets are at the top of the curve does this mean they are at the point on their orbit where their solar latitude is greatest, ie northern point vis-a-vis solar system ecliptic plane? And vice versa is the bottom of the curve when planets are at southmost point of their orbit? Are the inflection points the nodes of each planetary orbit? Do the four gas giants all have the same amplitude of solar latitude or are the data harmonised to put them on the same scale?

Robert, this graph is in the solar body coordinate frame, which is tilted with respect to the ecliptic by about 7.1 degrees as already described by Ray.

The Y axis is a simple linear projection of latitude from 0 at the solar equator towards the Sun's N and S rotational poles.

The first faint lines above and below the darker solar equatorial centre line are + and -0.2 radians (~11.4592 degrees) N and S solar latitude respectively.

The latitudes have not been 'normalized' in any way - the gas giants are not inclined to the ecliptic as strongly as the ~7 degree tilt of the solar body equator to the ecliptic, thus ensuring they all have a pronounced solar latitude cycle that does not deviate far from the ecliptic ~7 degrees max.

The zero crossings of any planet are always at the nodal points where it's orbit crosses the solar equator.

__________________
Carl Smith
The land of Oz

Thanks Carl. I am thinking about whether there is time to get that data into a spread sheet and actually do the whole exercise here with posted tables of data before the thread expires. I think there is, so I will have a shot at that. It will take a few days initially to get it together.

I will just mention now that I will be away from 7th May which is a few days before the end of the thread. So there will be no questions answered by me after 6th May.

Hi Robert

Those erratic movements are a bit surprising I agree. If these graphs are correct then I think that they must be due to the inner planets all shooting N or S of the Sun's equator at once at these times*, because the outer planets motions are clearly too slow and smooth to do that. As Carl said, the 4 gas giants are similarly inclined, at about 6 degrees to the solar equator. The maximum S and N latitudes for the large planets will be near longitudes 74+90 degrees and 74+270 degrees.

* Note that there is a period of a little over 11 years when the inner planets tend to roughly return to the same places in their orbits.

Mars 6 orbits = 11.28 years
Earth 11 orbits = 11.00 years
Venus 18 orbits = 11.07 years
Mercury 46 orbits = 11.08 years

So after 11.08 years all the inner planets are near a repeat. Of course this near repeat gets worse each subsequent 11 years, but will apply either side of a strong configuration.

So this makes the kinks even more surprising

Regards
Ray

Hi Carl

I am having trouble finding the barycentre information in the menus. Did you use the web interface? Can you tell me starting from a URL, click this, fill in this and so on to get to that please?

Regards
Ray

Point your browser at:

http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi

The content in the page that opens should look something like this:

http://plasmaresources.com/ozwx/SSB/...s/Settings.jpg

The required settings are shown above (click the "change" links to make your settings) - notes follow.

===============================================

Ephemeris Type [change] : VECTORS

http://plasmaresources.com/ozwx/SSB/...TypeVector.jpg

Click radio button beside "Vector Table", click "Use Selection Above".

This setting ouputs the results as cartesian state vectors (i.e. X, Y, Z relative to the reference plane) - you will need to convert them to spherical coordinates (lon, lat, and distance) - formulae below.


===============================================

Target Body [change] : Solar System Barycenter [SSB] [0]

http://plasmaresources.com/ozwx/SSB/...getBodySSB.jpg
Enter "0" (i.e. zero), set popup menu to "Major bodies only (planets, satellites, etc.)", click "Search".

===============================================

Coordinate Origin [change] : Sun (body center) [500@10]

[url]http://plasmaresources.com/ozwx/SSB/ephemerides/UsingHorizons/CoordinateOriginSun.jpg[url]

Enter "@sun", click "Search".

===============================================

Time Span [change] : Start=1604-12-25, Stop=1848-12-25, Step=1 d

http://plasmaresources.com/ozwx/SSB/...s/TimeSpan.jpg

Enter your time settings, click "Use Specified Times".

Note that there is a limit to the number of lines of output Horizons can generate in one session - if you exceed it, you will find out when you try to generate the ephemeris.

===============================================

Table Settings [change] : output units=KM-S; quantities code=1; reference plane=BODY EQUATOR; CSV format=YES;

http://plasmaresources.com/ozwx/SSB/...leSettings.jpg

Closely examine the settings here and do exactly the same (you can experiment later), then click the "Use Settings Above" when done.

===============================================

When you return to the main page it should look like this:

http://plasmaresources.com/ozwx/SSB/...s/Settings.jpg

Click "Generate Ephemeris".

===============================================

Wait for several minutes while Horizons does it's thing - in good time your results will display:

http://plasmaresources.com/ozwx/SSB/...ns/Results.jpg

===============================================

Here are the the formulae for converting cartesian coordinates (x, y, z) to spherical coordinates (longitude, latitude, radial_distance) in the same reference plane, pasted here as THINK Pascal fragments:

radial_distance := sqrt(x * x + y * y + z * z);

longitude := arcTan2(y, x);

latitude := arcSin(z / radial_distance);
or (high latitude case):
latitude := arcTan2(z, sqrt(x * x + y * y));

Notes:
In some spreadsheets the ATAN2 function has y and x order reversed to that shown here, i.e. =ATAN2(X,Y)

In some program languages including THINK Pascal (TP) you need to write the arcTan2 and arcSin functions first - here they are in THINK Pascal:

===============================================

Note from moderator: please just use links. Many of our members use dial-up.

__________________
Carl Smith
The land of Oz

Thanks Carl. I managed to get a CSV format file at monthly intervals which is most easily matched to sunspot numbers and often enough for the major planets slow motions.

For the period 1500 AD to 2100 AD I obtained annual locations of the barycentre relative to the Sun and took only the absolute value of the Z axis component of the deviation from the Solar equator of the barycentre. The absolute value is taken because it is not important whether the displacement is N or S, just by how much.

Using a spreadsheet FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) for 512 years starting in 1500 AD I calculated and plotted the FFT of the absolute N-S displacement of the barycentre relative to the Sun.



You can see that when the absolute value of the displacement is used, the 11.86 year period of Jupiter no longer dominates the spectrum, but the planet pairs of frequencies (either + or -) make the strongest components of the spectrum. The J-N component is exactly at the true sunspot cycle peak period. Other periods found here in the range 8 to 14 years are also found in the sunspot cycle.

I think that it is important to note that the above calculation gives the 11.1 year component a lot more power than the 11.86 year component. This is not true of the tidal calculations and it is not true of the COM calculations. The only reason that this happens is because the absolute value of the N-S position of the Sun relative to the barycentre is used. That is why this method gets an advantage over all other methods for trying to explain the Sunspot cycle, because it is observed to be strongest at 11.1 years and not at 11.86 years.

Hi Carl

Do my recent posts answer this question to your satisfaction?

I think that the key points to be made are:

1. Yes, in the Z direction without modification, the 11.86 year period of Jupiter dominates.

2. However when absolute displacement of the Sun from the zero point of barycentre is taken, the 11.86 year period no longer dominates, but the 11.1 and several other periods are now strongest.

3. All of these strong periods near 9 to 12 years are also found in the Sunspot cycle spectral analysis, which shows that the proposal is quite plausible.

4. Furthermore all of these periods based on frequencies such as J+N, J-N, J-U, J+U etc do not show up strongly in other proposed sunspot mechanisms from planetary forces. In the tidal forces model only J-N and J-U etc show up not J+N, J+U etc.

5. It is clear that the graph of solar motion about the barycentre does not directly give the sunspot cycle however. For the proposal to work it is also required that the Sun have a natural resonance at about 10.5 years which will enhance frequencies in that vicinity and diminish other frequencies (such as the J-S period of 19.86 years).

Note that there is a big coincidence in the Solar system as J+N gives 11.07 years and so does a J_V_E syzygy period. Maybe there is an undiscovered resonance in the Solar system for these 4 planets. But that period is also only about 0.01 years different (within error margins) of the long term solar cycle based on Schove's analysis of 2500 years of sunspot and aurora data.

tusenfem is not happy with what I have specified as the calculations involved, so I will have a shot at summarizing them here.

1. If we consider the accumulation of the planets accelerations on the Sun, then they show up as the motion of the Sun about the COM (Centre of Mass) of the solar system. This is well understood and as Carl has pointed out the data is available from NASA in the plane of the Sun's equator which is exactly what we want. Therefore I will not explain how to calculate the motion of the COM.

I simply comment that integral of acceleration over time is velocity and the integration of velocity over time is displacement. As what I am interested in is the displacement of the core of the Sun, I will work from the COM which already has had these calculations (acceleration, velocity and displacement) done from the planets forces. This is standard Newtonian physics, very basic stuff.

2. The "effective acceleration" of photons is 2x the Newtonian value when the travel tangentially to a body and 1x the Newtonian value when they travel radially. Because there are two dimensions tangentially and one radially this leads to an average "effective acceleration" on photons that is 5/3 times the Newtonian value.

I believe that the same argument applies to the relativistic mass component of ordinary matter also. So if matter with rest mass m is doing a velocity v then its relativistic mass is M=m/(1-v^c/c^2)^(0.5) and the relativistic mass component is (M-m). The acceleration of matter will have the same 5/3 factor for this component.

3. The proportion of the Sun's mass at various depths that is relativistic depends on the proportion of radiant matter and the temperature at that depth. These matters were discussed in the thread http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...s-surface.html and the conclusion was that at least to an order of magnitude, 10^-6 of the Sun's mass is the relativistic component. That will be a little higher in the core (say 2 times) and much lower near the surface (say~0 times).

4. By differential acceleration due to the planets, I mean the difference between the normal Newtonian gravitational acceleration and the increased acceleration by a factor of 5/3 applicable to the radiation and relativistic mass content. This applies to each small region of the Sun because each small region exchanges momentum between radiation and matter very rapidly.

4. Because the Sun is rotating, much of the differential acceleration in the solar equatorial plane is undone withing 26 days due to the Solar rotation because almost identical opposite forces act 13 days later. Therefore only the component of differential acceleration in the N-S direction of the Solar rotation needs to be considered.

5. The differential acceleration of different parts of the Sun by the planets can be calculated if the depends on the temperature to a large extent and so may be taken as varying from a maximum at the core to near enough to zero at the surface in an approximately linear manner. An expert on solar physics making a model might incorporate this factor into their calculations. However it is not radially symmetrical so it will complicate the calculations. I suggest that the effective planetary differential acceleration in the N-S direction is about (5/3 - 1) * 2*10^-6 at the core and about (5/3 -1) * 0 at the surface and varies roughly linearly in between.

6. We wish to calculate the effective acceleration, velocity and displacement of the solar core relative to the surface of the Sun. It is not necessary to do the calculation from the planets because NASA have done that for the total acceleration and we can work as a proportion of that. As the integration of acceleration to get velocity and displacement of the Sun has also been done by NASA we simply use the Z component (the N-S component in the Sun's rotation axis frame) as given by NASA and multiply that by our (5/3 - 1) * 2*10^-6 proportion for the core relative to the surface. That is, about 1.3*10^-6 which is possibly out by a reasonably large factor (hopefully less than 10).

7. Because the Sun is moving N and S by more than 100,000 km on a time scale of a decade, that means that the core is moving by about 0.13 km relative to the surface on that time scale. That may not seem much, but because the temperature of the Sun has a nearly linear gradient, that will affect the surface temperature by about the same factor of 1.3*10^-6 of 15,000,000 K or 20 K.

8. As radiation varies with the 4th power of temperature that will affect the radiant output of the Sun by something like 4*20/5600 or 1.4%, increasing the polar region in the direction that the core is moving. There will not be an opposite effect at the other pole except to a diminished extent when the direction changes and previously cooler surface layers that sunk are then rising again. This is quite complex to model.

9. I have not allowed for the fact that the core is much denser than the surface and so any movement there will be enormously magnified at the surface. Then again, I have not allowed for the fact that some of the effect will simply set up convection at various depths in the Sun. These are difficult problems for experts in solar dynamics to grapple with.

10. Because the whole question of why the Sun has a cycle of about 11 years is not really understood anyway (as i understand the facts to be) it is difficult to fully explain exactly how this will alter what is happening, but it surely will alter it.

Why don't you use an r.m.s. value?

i.e. ave. acc. = ((1²+2²+2²)/3)^1/2

= 3^1/2

It may well be 1.732 rather than 1.667 as you suggest. Is there a reason for expecting it to be the RMS value?

As far as the calculations go at present where we have huge uncertainties in the solar relativistic content, this small difference doesn't matter, but it would be rather nice to resolve what is the correct value.

rtomes

Lots of words again, now please show mathematically that your statements have any significance.
1. show that the the bending for light also holds for (relativistic) matter, using Uncle Al's theory
2. what happens with the Suns corona, which has an enormous temperature, and thus the particles will have lots of "relativistic mass" so they must also be more influenced by the NS motion/force/tide/whatever
3. please show us mathematically that indeed the core reacts more on the forces by the planets than the outer layers of the sun, and not just useless comment like "say 2 times"
4. If the core of the sun would move differenty from the outer layers, then we would most likely have observed that using helioseismology.

For the rest it is just lots of words and impressive-significant-sounding numbers, now, amaze us with some real mathematical models. Start with number 1 here above, and show that what you propose has some beef.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov