Why only papers from the late 1960s, where there is enough new stuff published, e.g. de Jager and Versteegh from 2005 and an addition to it (or correction on one mechamism) by Shirley from 2006.

What exactly are we supposed to understand from the Sun moving through its own magnetic field? The sun moves in its 179 year looping around the barycenter. The solar wind which carries the magnetic field, which originates from the Sun, flys away at 400 km/s, how is the Sun moving through this?

GR effect by planets on radiation and relativistic matter in the Sun's core causes slight convection cells in the solar interior leading to a varying amount of heat reaching the surface and to the production of magnetic fields. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Also I do not understand anything about this claim The fact that radiation is more strongly affected by gravity than ordinary matter at non-relativistic velocities is the basis of my proposal. I guess you are going to explain that to us.

For now, I will make the assumption that radiation in the solar core (as an ensemble of mass) is accelerated by 5/3 times as much as non-relativistic matter and that there is a similar effect on the relativistic component of matter in the Sun also. I think that you first need to show that this assumption is justified. Why would gravity work harder on relativistic particles?

Please, start from point zero, show that your assumptions are justified before you go any deeper into this stuff. And read some recent papers on the topic.

And for those who, like me, do not know what syzygy is (no it is not wysiwyg's sister), here is the definition from Merriam Webster. A difficult word for alignment.

__________________

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’m not sure if you gave the three proposals (tidal, COM and Jupiter’s moons) to be a statement of mainstream thinking. From what I have read from the current experts on sunspots none of the three proposals you mentioned are ever talked about. I think today’s main expert on Sunspots is NASA’s Dr. David Hathaway and I have never read or heard him speak about planet alignment relative to sunspots. He sees the sun as a dynamo that among other things produces sunspots.

As tusenfem alluded too much has changed since the 1990’s to today; we have observed many things that go onto the list of questions that any theory of the sun or sunspots will need to deal with.

I am anxious to see the physics behind the planets effect on sun’s core. I am hoping that you have more than charts and data that show a correlation. While I am personally convinced there is a correlation of planet position to what we see of sunspots, you are going to have a tough sell convincing me that a planets gravity or magnetism can reach 500,000km into the suns core and affect anything.

Jim

__________________

That was funny...

Jim

__________________

So if you are convinced there is a correlation but not convinced it's gravity or magnetism, what mechanism do you propose?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple

When I say correlation I mean in a statistical sense which means the r^2 number is big enough to possibly be something or it may be nothing. I am leaning towards angular momentum but it requires a certain amount of rigidity to the solar system. The point is the correlation number is high enough to get my interest, but it could be nothing.

I am interested in hearing Ray's theory.

Jim

__________________

There is no obstacle to gravitational action on the Sun's core. In one of the great mysteries of the cosmos, everything appears to be totally transparent to gravity.

What Ray is asking is about the possibility that the gravitational acceleration of the Sun's hot core might be different from that of a cold object, for relativistic reasons. I would yield to current experts on general relativity to analyze that one.

I see no merit to the angular momentum idea, for reasons I have expressed in prior threads.

Thanks for the explanation; I was guilty of quickly scanning what Ray wrote. I went back and read what he wrote again and I am beginning to see what Ray is talking about. I really underestimated what he was saying.
I’ll sit back and watch this one. Thanks Hornblower.

I was only answering captain swoop's question.

Jim

__________________

I am not trying to do a full review of these other proposals, just showing that they are serious proposals. If anyone wants to make a list of published papers and put it in this thread, then do so by all means, but I will concentrate on the proposal that I am making and only mention the others where there is some commonality of difference that I want to point out.
The body of the Sun also has a magnetic field as do sunspots. They are not flying out at 400 km/s. Anyway, I have no interest in defending that theory. I am proposing an alternative that has a moderate correlation with that theory in its predictions, but is based on an entirely different mechanism.
Well, it is more important to understand the later statement about the convection on the polar direction which is the result of a full rotation accumulation and so can build up over years.

The important thing is that if you accept that there is a doubling (or 5/3 times) effect of gravity on radiation (which was proven in the Eclipse experiments) then the central part of the Sun experiences a different rate of acceleration from what the surface experiences. Because of rapid mixing of momentum between radiation and matter, this acceleration applies to the matter there.

Additionally, there is an argument that this increased acceleration also applies to the relativistic content of ordinary matter as well as to light. This was all explained by G D Birkhoff in 1927.
Yes.
It was proven in the Eclipse observations that light was bent twice as much as expected in Newtonian theory. That bending is an acceleration and a change in momentum. That momentum is being transfered to matter at every interaction between radiation and matter in the solar interior.
There are no papers on this topic. No-one has ever calculated the accumulation of momentum that happens on contained radiation before.
Yes. An approximate syzygy of Jupiter, Venus and Earth occurs every 1.6 years, but good syzygys occur at intervals averaging 11.07 years although they are clustered around 10.38 and 12.00 years. There is definitely something in the tidal hypothesis. I am just showing that there is also an additional effect of the planets on the sun.

No. I gave them as background to the idea that the planets have effects on the sun. There is ample evidence from studying the frequencies found in sunspot numbers that they relate to planetary periods. However no mechanism has been generally accepted as explaining everything.
We need to distinguish between mainstream and logical. Seriously.

Any person who depends on getting their income from their scientific work is never going to look seriously at planetary alignments and sunspots. Why? Because it sounds like astrology. Most people will run a mile before they get associated with that. The main reason that serious papers were published in the 1960s was that NASA needed to be sure that they were not sending astronauts to the moon to get fried by solar flares. So some serious effort went in and as I understand it the only thing that they found that was useful was planetary alignments.
This is not meant to be an alternative to existing theories. It should be complimentary. I would hope that standard treatment can explain a natural resonance in the sun's magnetic field with a period of 10.5 years (well maybe 21 years really).
Yes, I will put up some tables and data.

Well, gravity quite simply does reach into the Sun's core from the planets. That is standard physics. What I need to show is that the amount of this effect is sufficient to have detectable changes in the Sun result. I believe that I can do that.

I have generally had little joy with GR experts. I find that they often say things like "but that bending of light is half due to gravity and half due to the metric" or something similar. When I ask did the vector of the light change by 1 or 2 as a result of passing near the Sun they go quiet. I don't think that that sort of words helps. Observation shows that light is bent twice as much. That is sufficient for my purposes. However I mentioned just now G D Birkhoff (a famous mathematician) who gave the equations for GR in a form that is more like vectors and stuff that I can understand. He said that GR people say that this 2x effect is not real even then, but he says it most certainly is. His description also says that it applies to matter at relativistic velocities. I have discovered recently that in fact the relativistic part of the mass of matter in the Sun (i.e. leaving out the rest mass) is actually much greater than the radiation content. My argument only gets stronger in this case.

Okay, let's forget about what has already been done.

The fact of the perihelion motion of Mercury shows that relativistic effects behave the same for non-relativistically moving objects. I am most definitely not in agreement that there is a doubling of whatever in the Sun. You will first have to show the math and observations that this is so and that it only works on photons and relativistically moving bodies.

If you would read de Jager and Versteegh you would see that there is nothing in the tidal hypothesis, as all effects are several orders of magnitude smaller than e.g. the convectional forces in the Sun where the dynamo action is working.

Like I said, read up on recent stuff, your idea may not be written down yet, but there is definitely enough stuff that may help you to stay on the right track. Don't try to re-invent the wheel.

__________________

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, are you saying that NASA knows from work it did in the 60s that planetary alignments are the answer but now ignores the work it did?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple

If such a scientist can make clear that this would be an important topic, then (s)he would get funded, but one would have to show more that a (quite possible) happestance correlation between two periods.

Then you better first read de Jager and Versteegh and then Shirley, because they show that the gravitational influence of the planets, compared with the other forces in the dynamo of the Sun is several orders of magnitude smaller (10⁴ times I think to remember).

__________________

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)

Not being a GR expert, I may slightly falter in explaining the equations of this calculation. However I am confident that the result is correct if the correct jargon can be found. The essential point is that gravity affects radiation (and probably also the relativistic content of matter) by a greater amount than it affects non-relativistic matter. I believe that the correct proportion is 5/3 times as much when summed over all possible directions, being 2x in the four directions that are transverse to the direction of the body that causes the gravity and 1x in the two directions radially.

In a following post I will deal with the equations of momentum transfer. For now I will show that the effects are of sufficient magnitude to be a factor in solar output variations and possibly the magnetic field effects.

Horizontal radiation is bent 2x as much as in Newtonian gravity as predicted by Einstein and as measured. For a light ray that just skims the Sun's surface the effect is measured as 1.75" as against Newtons 0.875". Change of direction for light represents change of the momentum vector. If a light ray in the Sun is traveling transversely to Jupiter's direction, then it will be bent at a rate that is 1/1000* 1/1000^2 as fast as a light ray passing the Sun. The first 1000 factor results from the fact that Jupiter is that much less massive than the Sun. The additional two factors come from the fact that Jupiter is 1000 times as far away from the Sun as the Sun's surface is from its core. So we find that light in the Sun's core is being bent at a rate that is a billionth of the rate that it gets bent as it passes the Sun. An that was a tiny 1.75" of arc. So we are now down to about 0.0000000017" of arc bending. But it is not zero. :-)

There are some extra factors to reduce the result of that tiny effect. At any one time the radiation content of the Sun is something like 1 part in 10^7 of its total mass or energy content. See http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...s-surface.html So when we are considering the difference in acceleration of the photonic content in the solar core (where the proportion is this 1 part in 10^7) and the surface where it is vastly less, the resulting acceleration will be about another 7 orders of magnitude less. We now have 0.00000000000000017" of arc bending each few seconds. The few seconds comes from the time that a photon is near the Sun in the famous Eclipse experiment.

Now we are almost ready to start on the the other side of the equation. There is one more factor to divide by, one more order of magnitude, due to the fact that the gas giants orbit at an angle of about 7 degrees to the Sun's equator. So they can spend long periods N or S of that equator. When they are N of the equator, the extra acceleration of the planet on the interior is towards the Planet, but then the Sun is rotating and so 13 days later most of the acceleration is undone by the same planet. However the component in the N or S direction is not undone. That component is about 1/10th. So the final figure for the extra acceleration on the internal part of the Sun per few seconds is 0.000000000000000017" of arc bending.

So what is the other side of the equation that could possibly compete with all those zeros? The answer is that the acceleration of the core of the Sun in a N or S direction by say Jupiter takes place in the same direction for 6 years at a time. Unlike the bending of light during an eclipse when the main action takes about 6 seconds. The equation for how far something gets moved by a constant acceleration is s = 1/2 a t^2 although in both cases the acceleration is not constant, rising from zero to a maximum and then falling away to zero again. However the proportion is correct. The effect of Jupiter is for a period about 30,000,000 times longer and due to the t^2 factot, the result in terms of actual movement is 10^15 times as much. So we take our little 0.000000000000000017" and knock 15 zeros off it and get 0.017" which is no longer quite so tiny. If we express this in radians it is about 10^-7 radians now something measurable.

Actually we can calculate the morion of the solar interior by a simpler more obvious means. Due to the outer planets the Sun moves about the COM by something like its own size over periods of the order of a decade. Just by applying the 10^-7 factor for the proportion of radiation and the 1/10 factor for the effect in the N or S direction we can find that the solar core will be moved by about 0.01 km N and S over a few decades. That may not sound like a lot, but the temperature gradient of the Sun is about 20 degrees per km and so that small movement should cause variations in the temperature at the poles of around 0.2 degrees. Remember also that radiation produced is the 4th power of temperature so this would cause a variation in radiation at the Sun's surface of about 0.015%.

Up until now I have only addressed the gravity effects on radiation. However teh effects on relativistic matter are also important. This may be a controversial matter as regards GR and some experts disagree. However Birkhoff says that it also applies to matter.

Anyway, the matter component may be several orders of magnitude higher than the radiation component. I think most important is that electrons have much higher velocities than nuclei in the solar core and so are more relativistic. Therefore there will be additional differential acceleration* applicable to this.

* By differential acceleration I mean that the centre of the sun is affected more than the surface due to its differing relativistic content.

No not at all. I am saying that NASA overcame their reluctance to look at planetary alignments because lives were at stake.

So why do you think they would no longer look at alignments?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple

What is horizontal? You mean the light from a far away star, passing by the sun during eclipse, that we see here at Earth I assume.
What do you mean with "a light ray in the sun traveling transversely to Jup's direction?" Do you mean somewhere in the equatorial plane of the sun, going out radially from the center, and Jupiter's direction is at 90 degrees with the propagation direction?
What bents this light when it is in the sun? The gravity of Jupiter?
This totally does not compute, describe better please and give some equations.

Give some equations please as a handhold of what exactly you are calculating. And radiation is energy, so you probably mean rest-mass energy or whatever. Again, this is so woolly that I have no idea what you want to explain here.

What equation, you have given words and words and words, I have not seen one equation yet.
How do you get this 1/10, and I guess I am correct in assuming that you are having the planets pull on the photon and .... well, lots of words, but it does not make any sense. Please start at the beginning, clearly, and give the appropriate equations.

But can you use 0.5 a t² on a photon? And how do you figure in the rotation of the Sun in which, when a photon travels radially, it will be pulled to Jupiter outward and half a rotation later will be pulled to Jupiter inward. So, that negates a lot of your zerso, I would assume.

Do you mean here the orbit of the sun around the barycenter? I thought that took about 179 years, not just a decade.

Don't start on the mass stuff, until you first clear up this mess here, with the appropriate equations and explanations, and please use powers of 10 so we don't need to wrestle through all those zeros, which might look impressive, but are not.

__________________

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 know whether NASA do or do not still look at alignments. I was suggesting why in general it is an unsafe area for many scientists who depend on tenure. Then explaining that one exception to that was NASA studies relating to moon missions. I am not up with everything that everyone has done.

Light is horizontal with respect to a mass when it travels between two close points that are the same distance from that mass. This is perfectly normal English usage of the word horizontal. Light from a distant star that just grazes the Sun is initially traveling almost exactly vertically but it is a long way away then, and likewise after it is well past. Only during the closest approach is it horizontal, but this is the part where the bending almost all takes place. Of course it does all the angles between vertical and horizontal at various distances.
I mean anywhere within the body of the Sun and traveling in a direction that is at 90 degrees to the direction of Jupiter at that point. It is normal English usage of the word transverse.

However it is the radiation near the core that is of most interest because the majority of the radiation within the Sun is in the core. Once radiation reaches the convective zone it makes very rapid progress to the surface. Therefore, as a percentage of the mass content, radiation is much more prominent in the core.
Yes. If light traveling transversely to the Sun is bent by the Sun, then light traveling transversely to Jupiter is similarly bent. The amount is just less because of the distances and less because of the lower mass. I have given the proportions that we need to reduce it.
I will give some equations later. However if you don't agree with the logic, then equations will not help. Is there any magic reason why the Sun's gravity should bend light twice as much as Newtonian gravity while Jupiter's should not?
Taken as a system, the radiant energy of the Sun does have rest mass. So yes I mean rest mass in that sense. People are used to taking zero rest mass for photons, but that supposes only that a single photon is traveling in one direction. Once you have a collection then the rest mass of the system is no longer zero but E=mc^2 in the frame in which the total momentum is zero.
Equations are implicit in the proportionalities that I have given. However I will be posting some equations that show how to deal with all the different directions of radiation (radial as well as transverse/tangential). Please be patient. I will be out a lot in the next 2 days but will get it done some time in that interval.
Consider the sun rotating with a planet 6 degrees N of the sun's equator. Then consider the sun rotating day by day over 26 days for a full rotation. Because of the rotation the vector component of that acceleration in the plane of the sun's equator all sum to zero. However the vector component in the N direction is constant. That component is sin(6 degrees) or 1/10 of the total.
Well it works for the one going past the Sun.

However the effects are not really just on the photons because they are interacting with matter more than 10^11 times per second in the solar core. Therefore all momentum that a photon gains from gravitational acceleration is shared with the matter very soon. The important thing that the maths of this will deal with is the time rate of change in momentum per unit mass. In other words acceleration. However we do not use the word acceleration for photons traveling vertically even though there is a time rate of change of momentum. And in this rapid momentum mixing environment vertical photons also are affected and share that momentum with matter. However in the vertical case there is no 2x factor, it is simply 1x the normal acceleration (I will show this soon with equations) which is why I say the effect over all random directions in space for photons in 5/3.
It causes one extra zero. That was answered in the question above. Because the tilt of the orbits relative to the Sun is about 7 degrees. I used sine(6 degrees) which is 1/10 as an approximation.
No at that point I mean Jupiter's orbit around the Sun (and the other gas giants) because it spends 6 years N of the Sun's equator and then 6 years S of it. The other gas giants of course have longer periods.

The orbit around the barycenter is of interest because it shows the sum total of all accelerations on the Sun. Because the photonic content is getting a 5/3 effect in acceleration, it tries to do the whole mass motion about the barycenter multiplied by 5/3. However because it exchanges its momentum with matter about 10^11 times per second, this motion is diluted by matter which must also participate in that motion. If the proportion of mass/energy of photons is 10^-7 of the total then that motion will be diluted 10^7 times.

On top of that the rotation cancels out all of the effects except the N-S motion (which is about 1/10 of the total) so that the final result is that the COM motion is retained only in the N-S direction. However the planetary effects are always only the component out of the Sun's equatorial plane. That means that if Jupiter and Saturn have a conjunction when they are at the far N or far S point it will have a big impact, but if they have it when they are crossing the sun's equator then it will have no effect.

That is why the COM idea almost works but not quite. The period of 171 years will be present on average (it has specific periods of 179 and 159 years between 4 planet events averaging 171 years) as will J-S conjunctions in the same part of the sky every 60 years. J-S have conjunctions every 20 years, and they happen at near to 120 degrees apart in the sky so that every third one is in the same place nearly. The whole thing has a much longer cycle of 880 years as those 3 locations gradually rotate in space until there is a return to the original configuration of J-S.
OK, sorry about that, it is just that they look so nice! :-)

In order to explain the maths here it is essential to look at things in a slightly different way. It is a different concept to any that I am aware of before. The way to look at it is to examine the time rate of change of momentum per unit mass. This has the same dimensions as acceleration, and effectively it is acceleration. However there are some cases that we have to deal with where the term "acceleration" would not be applicable, namely vertical (up or down) photons which nevertheless do have a time rate of change of momentum.

It is important to first get out of the way the issues relating to photon mass being zero and the difference between a single photon and a system. In normal convention the mass of a photon is taken as zero. That is the rest mass. However in any system (meaning a conglomeration of matter and radiation in some region of space) the rest mass is the mass as seen in the reference frame where the total momentum is zero or the centre of mass is not moving. So as soon as we have a collection of photons traveling in random directions, they each contribute to the system a mass m as given by e=mc^2 to that system. This is standard physics.

So let us start with a definition of a new variable which I will call "pull" and use the symbol "b" (being right next to "a" in the alphabet). Pull is defined as the time rate of change of momentum per unit mass.

b = 1/m.dp/dt

When we have a conglomerate of matter and radiation (such as the Sun's core or the Sun's outer layers) this variable b is the correct one to use as a measure of the acceleration of any part of that conglomerate. When we add together a bunch of matter and radiation, if we weight each part by its mass, then we will be summing correctly the momentum of that conglomerate. Then dividing again by the total mass we will get acceleration as a result.

When considering photons in a gravitational field (e.g. here on Earth in the laboratory) we can divide the directions into the 6 axes and determine the results for each case. The 4 horizontal axes are all the equivalent and Einstein has already shown that the change in direction is 2x the Newtonian one. So for these 4 photons we have that the acceleration vector and the momentum are changed by 2 times Newtonian gravity (g):

b = 2g

For the vertical photons, there is also a change in momentum predicted by Einstein. This is called "gravitational redshift" and Einstein's formula may be manipulated by using E=mc^2 and E=hf to find that b = g in both the vertically up and down cases.

df/dt = fg/c (as given by Einstein)

so b = 1/m.dp/dt = 1/m/c.dE/dt = h/m/c.df/dt = h/m/c.fg/c = Eg/E = g

That means there is no 2x factor for vertical photons, just the normal Newtonian rate of change of momentum per unit mass.

So taken over the whole sphere of directions for random photons we have 2x in 4 directions and 1x in two directions. That makes an average of 5/3x for random photon directions.

I will add that GR experts do not all agree on the above equations, and this is the part that makes this ATM perhaps. Everything else is standard physics. However some GR experts claim that my 5/3 factor is really only 1 and at least one stated that it is actually 2. I cannot see how the bending of light by the sun during an eclipse is double the Newtonian value if the fact is 1. Anyone who disagrees with this factor being 5/3 or at least different from 1 will need to explain that.

rtomes, you are kidding here, right? Einstein never said anything of the kind. His theorz predicted that in the case of starlight grazing the sun, the light would be bent more than would be expected classically. This does not mean that in general your b will be 2 g.

And what 4 axis are you defining in the horizontal plane? IIRC there are only 2 orthogonal directions in one plane. Do you separate here between +x and -x?


That would maybe apply if the photon is moving past the sun.
Furthermore, you cannot just take an average like that, if you have these kinds of spatial variations, you will have to integrate over the sphere you are working with.

edited as an afterthought
There is something wrong with your definition of b, which troubled me, but I did not notice immediately.
You would like to do relativistic physics here, or at least your variation of it. You define your pull in a totally classical way. You write:

b = (1/m) dp/dt

So classically this would be the force per unit mass, with units m s[sup]-2[sup] kg^-1, where p is the momentum of the particle mv. Naturally, you need to expand this to the relativistic framework, where still F = dp/dt holds, however, the relativistic momentum of a particle of rest mass m₀ is given by p = gamma m₀ v, with gamma the Lorentz factor (1 -v²/c²)^-1/2. Now, we see that the force F on a particle of rest mass m₀ depends on velocity v, i.e. you need more force to accelerate the particle as it gains more mass (the problem that you cannot reach light speed, unless you don't have mass).

Thus now the question is with b, what do we divide by, by the rest mass m₀, which would be okay because then you find that

b = d/dt ( gamma v )

or do you want to divide by the relativistic mass m (which is actually in your equation), but that leads to the problem that you have gamma before and behind the d/dt, and how this should be interpreted, at least you will end up with a b(t).

I think that b does not help us very much, there is no need to divide by the mass of the particles or of the conglomerate, as the equations of motion are totally fine with particles of various mass. This is just complicating stuff for no reason.

So you have mass and radiation (which you convert through E=mc² to mass). The problem is, however, that in words it sounds nice, but .... you do not start with dp/dt, you start with the other side of the equation, with F, because you want to calculate the acceleration part of dp/dt, and F will still be given by e.g. Newton's law of gravitation. So, you are complicating stuff here unnecessarily. And you can "sum the momentum of the conglomerate" but that does not give you acceleration if you divide it by mass, only if you divide (classically or relativistically) the time derivative of the momentum by the (classical or relativistic) mass, then you get an acceleration.

__________________

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)

As I hear you explain this, this is what I get (hope you don't mind me summing things up):

1. It's not that planetary alignments cause sunspots through tidal forces.

2. It's a certain resonance involving planetary alignments, with a periodicity of around 10.5 years.

3. The resonance differs depening on how many planets are aligned, where, when, etc.

4. In effect, they're "ringing the sun's bell."

5. If the resonance is in tune with the sun's current frequency, it adds to it's ringing, producing more eddies in the sun which lead to more sunspots (solar maximums). If it's out of tune, it well quell it's ringing (less eddies, less sunspots --> Maunder Minimum).

If this is what you're saying, I get it, and agree it's very theoretically possible.

I also hear you're saying this can apply to planets with non-solid cores, and that the general level of volcanic activity can also be affected by the same "ringing" effect involving planetary resonance.

I liken this effect to shaking a small flagpole. If you're pushing and pulling just ahead of it's natural resonance, it's flexing back and forth increasess. If you're oscillations are out of tune with the flagpoles, it dampens the flexing, eventually bringing it to a stop.

It doesn't take much effort to cause a significant effect. Just well-timed input oscillations over a long time.

Years ago, back in college (and for whatever unknown reason...) I began some input oscillations with a light post, causing it to flex back and forth. This sucker was large and designed to withstand winds upwards of 200 mph. But after about a minute of input, it was flexing back and forth so much that it broke! <duck and run...>

I never thought THAT would happen.

But it proved a point: very small, well-timed inputs to any system which can "vibrate" and increase those vibrations to the point where it can have catostrauphic results.

And again, to summarize, it's not that planetary alignment causes tidal forces which cause sunspots. It's that when the resonance of tidal forces due to many peaks and troughs of planetary alignments match a natural resonance within the sun, it starts ringing it like a bell (or flexing it back and forth like a lightpost), and that's what causes sunspots, affects the liquid innards of other planets, etc.

__________________
After careful consideration of NASA's Constellation Program, I believe Directv3 is the only viable means of achieving the objectives of NASA's Vision for Space Exploration.

"...only nuclear power can now halt global warming." - James Lovelock, independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist, and an open member of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy

The 2x is not something special relating to the Sun. It is a general prediction of GR that light bending is double what it would be under Newtonian gravity.
Yes. I need to do x+, x-, y+, y- because z+ and z- need to be done as separate cases.
I agree. However from what Birkhoff wrote I believe that 5/3 is the correct result for the integration. However that remains to be proven.
I don't have time right now to do justice to this one. Will address it later.
I think that the objective of the calculation is important thing to get established. Then if there is a better way of saying things and doing things it can be arrived at. It is this:

For a combination of radiation and matter (which may be at very slow velocities or slightly relativistic velocities) what is the individual contribution of each part to the change in momentum of that part due to gravity, and then summed over a region in the Sun in which mixing is happening in the time frame involved. Because of the known double bending of light (which I maintain is a general result) the answer must be that there is a difference in acceleration for different proportions of radiation (and relativistic matter).

Later I will supply refernces on a physicist who finds differences on Earth that might also be taken as support for this notion.

I am not saying that tidal forces do not play a part. I am saying that a GR effect does play a part.
Yes, except that it isn't strictly planetary alignments, it is the N-S motion relative to the Sun's equator which happens to correlate to alignments.
In general each planet has an individual effect and planetary pairs also. You can look at larger groupings, but for the outer planets the periods involved are then much longer than 10.5 years.
Yes.
I don't know about the eddies or what the exact nature of the Sun's resonance is. But the forces involved will cause toriodal type convection in the core with the core flowing N when the surface layers flow S and vice versa.

As I see it, to get a Maunder minimum you have to have the forces meeting the existing oscillations head on. Like pushing a person on a swing at the wrong time, so that you reduce the oscillations to virtually zero.
Yes, Earth doesn't have a solid core and therefore it can also have internal convection.
And the period of that resonance has to be quite accurately 10.5 years so that is a strict requirement of the proposal.

Not for no reason.

In the case of vertically moving photons, there is no change in velocity, but a change in frequency. So it cannot be called acceleration. However that change in frequency does change the momentum of the photons and the net result on the whole system of matter and radiation is an acceleration.

So I am happy to accept that there might be a better way of expressing things, but I don't think the actual concept needed does already exist. It is effectively acceleration but because of the radiation needs to be phrased as change in momentum per unit mass.
Can you offer a full description that allows for radiation in the vertical and horizontal directions also?

Sorry, I stand corrected.

Newton's bending:

If we want to fake the propagation of light in Newtonian gravity, we can set the energy E = m v²/2 = m c²/2 so that (2 E/m) = c². The angular momentum per unit incoming mass (L/m) becomes L/m = R₀ c. The total angular sweep Δf = π + δf is given by

0 = (1/R₀) cos(Δf/2) + (G M/c²)/R₀²,

- cos(π/2 + δf/2) = sin(δf/2) ~ δf/2 = (G M/c²)/R₀

so finally δf_N = 2 (G M/c²)/R₀ is the deflection angle for light found by naively using the Newtonian model for a particle with velocity c.

Einstein's bending:

1/r = (1/R₀) cos(f) + ((G M/c²)/R₀²) (2 - cos²(f)).

The term cos²(f) can be neglected if the deflection angle δf is very small and Δf/2 is close to π/2. Therefore, to lowest order in δf we get

0 = (1/R₀) cos(Δf/2) + 2 (G M/c²)/R₀²,

- cos(π/2 + δf/2) = sin(δf/2) ~ δf/2 = 2 (G M/c²)/R₀.

Therefore δf_E = 4 (G M/c²)/R₀ = 2 δf_N is the deflection angle for light found by using null geodesics in the Schwarzschild metric according to General Relativity.

So, only by the grace of small deflection δf can we truncate the Taylor series for the trigonometric functions and end up with Ein = 2 New

__________________

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)

That does not make sense, why would the result for -x be different from +x. That would mean that if we see an eclips in summer the beding would be different from what we would see in winter.

you keep on mentioning Birkhoff, care to say what paper or book?

This is even more woolly than before! You need, FROM THE START, to come up with correct equations to describe what you are envisioning. Your "new" term pull, which is basically force per unit mass, is nice but does not do very much. It is totally unclear what you want to do here, redifining gravitational interactions and such.

If you don't think you can do the math, then say so, and I will drop out of this thread and let you muddle on by yourself.

__________________

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 forget that change of momentum, dp/dt, be it classical or relativistic is always caused by a force and always leads to acceleration. Whether or not the acceleration changes the magnitude of the momentum depends on the direction of the force, example:

I have an electron in a magnetic and electric field at an angle φ.

If φ = 0 degrees, then the electron will be accelerated along the magnetic field line from 0 to whatever value, which corresponds to the potential drop along the field line.

If φ = 90 degrees, then the electron will be accelerated perpendicular to the magnetic field, and the Lorentz force starts to work, bending the electron around the magnetic field lines. The gyrating electron feels a constant acceleration towards the field line, centripital force, which constantly changes the direction of the momentum, but not the magnitude, as the force cannot do any work on the electron.

Apart from this gyration, there is also the ExB drift, at constant velocity perpendicular to the electric and the magnetic field, which I will just let be for the moment.

If φ is neither of these values, then a combination of the two will happen, acceleration along the field (changing momentum magnitude) and rotation around the field (changing momentum direction).

Consider your horizontal photons like the gyrating electrons
Consider your vertical photons like the field aligned electrons

__________________

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)