WildWill Posted June 11, 2022 Share Posted June 11, 2022 (edited) Howdy All Y’all, There have been a number of interesting posts under other topics regarding Jupiter’s influence - and that of the barycenter of the solar system, particularly when Jupiter is in Sagittarius, pulling the barycenter toward the center of the galaxy. After a little research and following the conversations across various topics, I thought I would create topic just for this stuff… Here is an excerpt from a post a few,days ago which I found particularly interesting: (I can’t seem to quote a post from another topic in here) Archmonoth wrote: (excerpts from Jun 6) So here is my hot take on mass/gravity influence: Distances, Weights, and Speculation: Galactic Core= 4 million solar (Sun) masses. Distance from the Sun: 8,000 parsecs, each parsec is 3.26 light years, each light year is 9.46 trillion kilometers, and 8 parsecs is 246,716.8 trillion kilometers. This means the pull of the core is 4 million masses divided over 246,716.8 trillion kilometers, and via the Inverse Square law, would mean, whenever the distance doubles, the gravitational pull is decreased by a factor of 4. This continues for 40 steps (1/2 distance) until you reach a distance of 897,000 kilometers (edge of Sun’s radius is about 700k) with a pull of 0.000,000,000,000,005,05 solar masses. (1.01x10^16 kilograms) I’m not saying the gravitational pull is 1.01x10^16 kilograms but is the equivalent gravitational pull of that weight at a distance of 897,000 kilometers. Jupiter is 778,000,000 kilometers from the Sun and has a weight of about 1/1047th (.00095) solar mass. Jupiter’s pull on the Sun at 759,765 kilometers (near the Sun’s edge) is 0.000,000,000,898 solar masses. This is many magnitudes above the gravitational pull of the galactic core. (1.796×10^21 kilograms) So, Jupiter increases the pull towards the center of the galaxy when in alignment and inversely changes when on the other side of the Sun. This tells me there is an acceleration and deceleration of the Sun’s velocity as it travels around the barycenter at different times during Jupiter’s orbit. Earth’s mass/distance: Mass: 1/330,000 Solar masses. Distance from the Sun: 149,000,000 kilometers Which is to say the Earth’s pull on the Sun at 582,031 kilometers (Just inside the Sun’s Radius) is 0.000,000,000,453 solar masses. (9.06×10^20 kilograms) Earth has about half the influence as Jupiter has on the Sun. The ratio and the amount are not overly important, just trying to express that there is an additive pull towards the galactic core. Each planet in alignment would add more acceleration and equivalent conservation. So, because of the acceleration, there is a curve/turn occurs in the barycenter and momentum is conserved. My guess is that this conservation duration takes 1 solar cycle (11ish years) to complete, returning to the solar minimum after the sunspots approach the equator (butterfly pattern). This is correlative with Jupiter aligning with Sagittarius (galactic core) and Jupiter’s orbit being 11.82 years. JUPITER IN SAGITTARIUS DATES December 25, 1982 - January 19, 1984 December 9, 1994 - January 3, 1996 November 23, 2006 - December 18, 2007 November 8, 2018 - December 2, 2019 October 22, 2030 - November 15, 2031 Here are the start times of solar cycles: Solar cycle 22: 1986-09 Solar cycle 23: 1996-08 Solar cycle 24: 2008-12 Solar cycle 25: 2019-12 My assumption/guess is that sunspots, flares, and CMEs are partially the result of energy/momentum being conserved after Jupiter (and other planets) changes the Sun’s velocity. End excerpts… I also found an interesting diagram showing the location of the barycenter relative to the sun… Note, a more accurate depiction would be to have the barycenter stationary and the sun orbiting it. Also, this orbit around hi the barycenter is a chaotic non-linear dynamic system. It has no closed form solution, so everything going forward should be taken with a big hunk of salt, due to “sensitivity to initial conditions”. Also note, the path of the sun around the barycenter is confined to what we would call a “strange attractor”. Never repeating, but confined to a bound region. if y’all don’t mind - please repost your posts on this topic here - at least the interesting ones… Sorryit too, so long to get this started! WW Edited June 11, 2022 by WildWill Fat fingers 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted June 11, 2022 Share Posted June 11, 2022 (edited) WW and A: Thanks for starting this thread. It will make for some interesting discussion. N. Edited June 11, 2022 by Newbie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildWill Posted June 11, 2022 Author Share Posted June 11, 2022 (edited) Archmonoth edited his post (June 9) My comments in bold… edited) On 6/6/2022 at 10:26 AM, WildWill said: Also, with respect to these alignments, it would seem to me that Jupiter would “override” any alignment of minor planets and asteroids. To me this is a string which unravels a knot. Regarding mass and the barycenter, not all planets are equal, and their distance also changes their influence. So here is my hot take on mass/gravity influence: Distances, Weights, and Speculation: Galactic Core= 4 million solar (Sun) masses. Distance from the Sun: 8,000 parsecs, each parsec is 3.26 light years, each light year is 9.46 trillion kilometers, and 8 parsecs is 246,716.8 trillion kilometers. This means the pull of the core is 4 million masses divided over 246,716.8 trillion kilometers, and via the Inverse Square law, would mean, whenever the distance doubles, the gravitational pull is decreased by a factor of 4. This would be true if the only things in the universe were the sun and the black hole at the galactic core. You are neglecting the other 3 billion solar masses within our galaxy… given the shape of out galaxy and distribution of stars, one could reasonably expect that the barycenter of the galaxy is inside or very nearly inside the black hole at the center of the galaxy. So, you need to add 9-11 to the exponent for the mass of the “galactic core”. In other words , you are off by 9 to 11 orders of magnitude… Also note, this number is considered “light” as the galaxy would “fly apart” using the given figures for mass and size, also the outer stars in the spiral arms are moving faster than would be expected… I have seen the “size/mass” of the galaxy change quite a number of times in my short lifetime… This continues for 40 steps (1/2 distance) until you reach a distance of 897,000 kilometers (edge of Sun’s radius is about 700k) with a pull of 0.000,000,000,000,005,05 solar masses. (1.01x10^16 kilograms) Why are you calculating it this way, with “steps”? F= Gm1m2/r^2. Plug and chug… G = ~6.7x10^-11 Note the masses are multiplied, so the exponents for the masses are added… I’m not saying the gravitational pull is 1.01x10^16 kilograms but is the equivalent gravitational pull of that weight at a distance of 897,000 kilometers. It’s not weight, but mass here… Jupiter is 778,000,000 kilometers from the Sun and has a weight of about 1/1047th (.00095) solar mass. Jupiter’s pull on the Sun at 759,765 kilometers (near the Sun’s edge) is 0.000,000,000,898 solar masses. This is many magnitudes above the gravitational pull of the galactic core. (1.796×10^21 kilograms) So, Jupiter increases the pull towards the center of the galaxy when in alignment and inversely changes when on the other side of the Sun. This tells me there is an acceleration and deceleration of the Sun’s velocity as it travels around the barycenter at different times during Jupiter’s orbit. Earth’s mass/distance: Mass: 1/330,000 Solar masses. Distance from the Sun: 149,000,000 kilometers Which is to say the Earth’s pull on the Sun at 582,031 kilometers (Just inside the Sun’s Radius) is 0.000,000,000,453 solar masses. (9.06×10^20 kilograms) Earth has about half the influence as Jupiter has on the Sun. ……… This study is the primary basis for this speculation: The case study for the barycenter drivers of the solar cycle (1).pdf (uvs-model.com) This describes the planets only, not the galactic core, but the study shows conjunctions existing as start/stop of solar cycles. I am comparing them to the galactic pull, (a pull originating outside the solar system) to illustrate how conjunctions can be additive in a consistent and periodic direction. EDIT: I got the distant from the galactic core wrong in the calculation. The amount of influence the core has on the Sun is 1/10,000th (maybe a bit less) of the influence of Earth. I don't think the galactic core has enough influence to change the Sun's barycenter or solar activity/cycles. Again, this would be true if it was just the sun and the black hole at the center of the galaxy - but we have to take into account the mass of the galaxy! And the barycenter of the galaxy! Here is a Desmos graph for some visualization of solar mass equivalence. https://www.desmos.com/calculator/qydeq1jchu Edited 9 hours ago by Archmonoth ——————————————- end quote—————————- I have not done the calculations yet, but I do believe your forces are off by 9-11 orders of magnitude… WW ——-. Next Post ——— 50 minutes ago, Newbie said: WW and A: Thanks for starting this thread. It will make for some interesting discussion. N. I hope so. There seems to be a lot of interest around this topic… I find it to be fascinating… This shows a plot of the location of the barycenter relative to the sun, over time… notice, it was farthest from the center of the sun in 1984 - when a major conjunction occurred - and all the crazies thought the world would end in earthquakes and tidal waves! lol This is a chaotic dynamic system. It would be more accurately depicted if the barycenter was stationary and the sun’s orbit shown around it. This is what,is called a “strange attractor” as the trajectory through space is non-repeating and yet confined to a closed region of space. That would be a barycentric view. Where the barycenter is considered an inertial fram of reference;however, we all know there is no such thing… if we too, another step backwards and used the barycenter of the galaxy as out reference frame, we would have the solar system orbiting the galactic barycenter in a slightly wobbled trajectory. I’ve seen a number of comments which suggest that the barycenter doesn’t “wobble” in its orbital path and that the barycenter doeasntmchange because the mass of the solar system has constant mass. And I have also seen, even from people who work at NASA say that barycenter is just a fancy name for center of mass and center of gravity, all of these statements are false. The center for gravity of a system is collocated with the center of mass only in a uniform gravitational field, which I don’t believe is the case here… Also, the moments of inertia for the solar system are not constant. They change as the planets revolve and their relative positions to the sun and each other change. As an example… take a top - tape a penny on top. Spin it - it will pop up and spin nearly normally - just a little faster. Now, take the penny off the top and tape it to the side of the top, high up on the top and as far from the center axis you of the top as possible, now spin t again. You will find that it wobbles, even at full speed… So it would be even more accurate to depict the barycenter of the solar system over time as a slightly wobbling orbit around the galactic core… Barycenter of which is orbiting the barycenter of the local cluster, and it around the barycenter of the local super-cluster, etc… W & A Edited June 11, 2022 by WildWill Fat Fingers, Slow Brain… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archmonoth Posted June 11, 2022 Share Posted June 11, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, WildWill said: This would be true if the only things in the universe were the sun and the black hole at the galactic core. You are neglecting the other 3 billion solar masses within our galaxy… given the shape of out galaxy and distribution of stars, one could reasonably expect that the barycenter of the galaxy is inside or very nearly inside the black hole at the center of the galaxy. So, you need to add 9-11 to the exponent for the mass of the “galactic core”. In other words , you are off by 9 to 11 orders of magnitude… Also note, this number is considered “light” as the galaxy would “fly apart” using the given figures for mass and size, also the outer stars in the spiral arms are moving faster than would be expected… I have seen the “size/mass” of the galaxy change quite a number of times in my short lifetime… I have not done the calculations yet, but I do believe your forces are off by 9-11 orders of magnitude… WW You are very correct, I was trying to see what kind of influence the core has on the barycenter, if at all. The reasoning was to find if alignments were additive enough to cause acceleration or changes in angular momentum, or related to start/stop of cycles, sunspots/solar activity. 4 hours ago, WildWill said: ——-. Next Post ——— I hope so. There seems to be a lot of interest around this topic… I find it to be fascinating… This shows a plot of the location of the barycenter relative to the sun, over time… notice, it was farthest from the center of the sun in 1984 - when a major conjunction occurred - and all the crazies thought the world would end in earthquakes and tidal waves! lol Patrick posted an avrix link https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1706/1706.01854.pdf Which addresses many of my questions to how the barycenter affects sunspots and cycles. The first being that Jupiter only causes 1 mm of acceleration. The changes in angular momentum are correlative with changes in sunspots: The velocity of the sun is more/mostly impacted by the position within the barycenter, rather than the pull of the planets. A quote from the AVRIX link: "...Unlike the situation in Keplerian orbital motion, the velocity of the Sun is smallest when the Sun approaches the barycenter most closely, and is largest when farthest away." So, I think there are 2 different impacts on the Sun, the first is what the barycenter route is, the second is the velocity of the Sun. I imagine this is like the shape/route of a river versus the velocity/flow rate of the water. The barycenter is the route of the river made by gravitational pushes and pulls. (From planets, galactic core etc.) The water flow rate is the velocity of the Sun, and when this velocity changes, the angular momentum needs to be conserved somewhere. The study later suggests that there are systems which have couplings of orbits where angular momentum can be transferred and exchanged: "If orbit-spin coupling leads to a secular spin-down of the solar rotation rate, then momentum conservation would presumably dictate a corresponding secular transfer of momentum to the linked ‘reservoir’ of the orbital motions of the planets of the solar system." Also about 86% of the angular momentum in the solar system exists within Saturn and Jupiter. (according to the study) To me this suggest that when the Sun is in conjunctions or alignments with Saturn and Jupiter perhaps there is an exchange of angular momentum The study also uses Mars and an example of a system without any buffers/exchange systems because of its lack of atmosphere, while Earth has an ocean to exchange/transfer angular momentum to the Moon. 4 hours ago, WildWill said: I’ve seen a number of comments which suggest that the barycenter doesn’t “wobble” in its orbital path and that the barycenter doeasntmchange because the mass of the solar system has constant mass. And I have also seen, even from people who work at NASA say that barycenter is just a fancy name for center of mass and center of gravity, all of these statements are false. Yeah, I think "wobbling" might be a misnomer too, since the river route is a smooth course, with Jupiter causing a 1mm acceleration at most. 4 hours ago, WildWill said: This continues for 40 steps (1/2 distance) until you reach a distance of 897,000 kilometers (edge of Sun’s radius is about 700k) with a pull of 0.000,000,000,000,005,05 solar masses. (1.01x10^16 kilograms) Why are you calculating it this way, with “steps”? F= Gm1m2/r^2. Plug and chug… G = ~6.7x10^-11 Note the masses are multiplied, so the exponents for the masses are added… Yeah, I was plug/chug, and makes sense, I don't normally deal with exponents and math to this degree, so this is a stretch for me. 4 hours ago, WildWill said: It’s not weight, but mass here… You are correct. 4 hours ago, WildWill said: Again, this would be true if it was just the sun and the black hole at the center of the galaxy - but we have to take into account the mass of the galaxy! And the barycenter of the galaxy! I think the mass, if recalculated would be helpful for finding the effect it has on the route of the Sun, which may not be the influence which causes Sunspots/solar activity. So how does the changes in velocity and angular momentum affect sunspots/solar activity? Some excerpts: "...Models indicate that meridional flow speeds may play a central role in the determination of sunspot cycle periods, shapes, and amplitudes." So how does angular momentum affect meridional flows of the Sun? This is what I'm currently trying to learn about. Edited June 11, 2022 by Archmonoth 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildWill Posted June 11, 2022 Author Share Posted June 11, 2022 I’m not gonna quote Archmonoth” response to my post… if I did, this topic would end up with one post per page! I am a bit longwinded! Hi Archmonoth, Just to address a couple of points: I briefly scanned the 70 page Paper that Patrick had posted… and correct a couple of my mistakes. There is a lot in there, I would have to do quite a bit of math to fully understand it and form an opinion… I made a mistake… regarding the barycenter of the galaxy, the Milky Way is estimated as having 100-400 Billion stars, not 1 Billion. Two orders of magnitude larger. The mass of those 1-400 B stars + mass of all the interstellar gas, nebulae, black holes, dark matter, dark energy and the N and S Magellanic Clouds - they orbit the galaxy close enough to include… Thats a lot of mass! Yet still not enough to account for the rotation rate of the galaxy without the theory of inflation. And, I’m not sure inflation fully explains it. IT = stars at the outer limb of the spiral arms are moving faster than they would be expected to, based upon the estimated force of the Milky Way’s gravity… but I haven’t really been keeping up on that.. Angular momentum is constantly being exchanges between bodies in a gravitational system like our solar system. The big question is how significant is that effect and do the assumptions seem realistic/plausible. Also, one would expect this exchange of energy because of the forces being exerted on the bodies by each other (gravity). I have also been considering the effects of the differing rotational periods from the poles to the equator, coupled with sheer “zones” and the Coriolis Effect. The sum of tidal forces should be toward the barycenter, but the manifestation of the “tides” on the sun would be much more complex, IMNSHO. 😎 As you ponder Patrick’s theory on conjunction of certain orbital bodies causing sunspots, have you given that almost all the bodies he named don’t have magnetic fields??? With the sole exception of Mercury, which is by far the closest, very close and it’s magnetic field is very weak - field strength = ~1/100 th of that of the Earth! As a side note, of the 4 fundamental forces: Electromagnetism, Weak Nuclear & strong Nuclear & and gravity - gravity is the “weakest” of the 4. Yet, as we live on the top of the earth and study the sky, it is gravity we look to as the driving force of the universe! “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know! Every kernel of knowledge results in at least 10 questions… WW 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bry Posted June 11, 2022 Share Posted June 11, 2022 Okay... here is my list of posts I've made regarding the topic of planetary alignments and solar activity and barycenter. I'm really behind getting to answering the actual new responses! Thank you so so much for taking the time to answer this questions with some genuine understanding of physical principles! I will take the time to review and respond after organizing some info! I feel like its been the main question I've been asking every time I post so its cool to see the question evolve as I learn more, and actually get a response! The funny thing is, this particular topic has made up the majority of all my posts on this forum, only 2 or 3 have not been about this topic. My main question was asked on June 6 in the Place Sunspot June 7 topic Patrick started to forecast for us quoted below. I am only posting all of these as it took this many times asking to get anywhere near where someoneone is willing to understand and answer them! So thank you for taking the time to organize and answer these compelling questions to non rocket scientists! I see just looking at sunspot activity akin to trying to bat in baseball by looking only at the strike zone in front of you rather than anticipating the pitchers wind up to see where and when the ball will be released... if that's a good enough analogy. I guess we only care about balls that make it to our "strike zone" at the end of the day anyways. I owe everyone on this forum much credit for getting me to the point of understanding and asking this question in particular, so without their responses or prompts for context this list is merely a reference to find those important responses! I believe I owe (3gmike, drakx, oreno, minyoogi, vancander, patrick, archmonoth, chrisx, I'm sure theres more) and now you for the knowlege and interest shared to get me to the point of asking this question. The whole reason I know about spaceweather in the first place is a fellow at a Rainbow Gathering mentioned it to me when I showed interest in planetary alignments and large earthquake occurrences. I assume they were talking about Patrick on space weather live so I kinda owe him my whole connection to helioscience in the first place. I did notice that before solar system barycenter was proposed or acknowledged to have an effect on solar activity, there was a whole lotta doubt regarding planetary alignment effects on our sun activity. Now it seems like there is some correlation... and a little less laughing at the planets! Here is my main question from topic June 6 - Place sunpot June 7: Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is: Assuming: 1. the solar barycenter is influenced in direction of jupiter 2. the heliosphere has a direction towards the galactic center and incoming interstellar winds Wouldn't it mean that when Jupiter is on the side of the solar system closest to the galactic center and interstellar medium (Scorpius, Sagittarius, etc.) it would indicate a time of solar minimum and associated enhanced cosmic radiation? Likewise, the opposite should be true as well: When Jupiter is farthest from the galactic center and interstallar medium (constellation Orion) it would indicate a time of solar maximum, lower cosmic radiation Rather than actually repost the questions themselves here is a list of the conversations and the topics they were listed in and what dates if anyone actually cares to go back and see the context of the conversations and who else particiapted/contributed to this new topic. Why so many limb eruptions?????: 5/2, 5/4, 5/7, 6/6, 6/8, 6/9 Incoming Regions: 5/10, 5/11 Sunspot Region 3006: 5/11 Place Sunspot June 7: 5/31, 6/3, 6/4, 6/6 I hope this suffices for consolidating all the posts on this topic without bogging it down! Thanks everyone! It sure has been hot lately where I am, hope for some storming relief tomorrow (rain or geomagnetic, I'll take it!) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Silver Posted June 11, 2022 Share Posted June 11, 2022 Ok, this is infinitely fascinating. I think a lot about the Sun hurtling through space, orbiting the galactic center which is also hurtling through space, and sometimes try to do the math of how fast we humans are actually moving right now…I think about it so much I wrote a rock opera about it, I mean. Seriously. And yes, that strangely interacting electromagnetic energy > gravity. Its not like woo-woo “everything is energy, mannn” in a Cheech n Chong accent…it’s more like: Whoa, everything IS energy. On a vast scale. Im barely smart enough to read this thread. Looking forward to more… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archmonoth Posted June 12, 2022 Share Posted June 12, 2022 (edited) 8 hours ago, WildWill said: Angular momentum is constantly being exchanges between bodies in a gravitational system like our solar system. The big question is how significant is that effect and do the assumptions seem realistic/plausible. Also, one would expect this exchange of energy because of the forces being exerted on the bodies by each other (gravity). In this instance I think gravity has already made the path of the barycenter, since the Sun has less angular momentum than Saturn and Jupiter, but more mass. However, when the velocity of the Sun changes, it is sharing its angular momentum with Saturn/ Jupiter much like we share a tiny bit with our Moon. 8 hours ago, WildWill said: I have also been considering the effects of the differing rotational periods from the poles to the equator, coupled with sheer “zones” and the Coriolis Effect. The sum of tidal forces should be toward the barycenter, but the manifestation of the “tides” on the sun would be much more complex, IMNSHO. 😎 As you ponder Patrick’s theory on conjunction of certain orbital bodies causing sunspots, have you given that almost all the bodies he named don’t have magnetic fields??? With the sole exception of Mercury, which is by far the closest, very close and it’s magnetic field is very weak - field strength = ~1/100 th of that of the Earth! Yeah, how the spin/areas on the Sun rotate have a lot to do with sunspots/solar activity. From what I see in Patrick's idea involves he is claiming some sort of magnetic exchange, rather than momentum exchange. This is just what I've learned from criticizing his ideas over the many threads. There is a connection, but planetary alignments and magnetic fields of planets seem to have little to do with solar activity. The sun's magnetic field (increases/decreases) does seem to be one of the possible reservoirs of where the momentum is conserved, but not from planets. Planetary alignments seem to have no direct effect on solar activity, but the planet's ability to move the barycenter does change how the Sun behaves, so its an indirect relationship. For me, I think the fact that there are times with no sunspots/activity, and there are many conjunctions makes it pretty clear that planetary alignments don't affect sunspots directly. NASA - Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age | NASA Here is a quick list of conjunctions: List of conjunctions (astronomy) - Wikipedia 8 hours ago, WildWill said: As a side note, of the 4 fundamental forces: Electromagnetism, Weak Nuclear & strong Nuclear & and gravity - gravity is the “weakest” of the 4. Yet, as we live on the top of the earth and study the sky, it is gravity we look to as the driving force of the universe! To reply to your side note, the 2 types of invariances which seems to transcend the fundamental forces is the conservation of energy over time, and momentum over distance. Momentum - Wikipedia "It is an expression of one of the fundamental symmetries of space and time: translational symmetry." 6 hours ago, Bry said: Here is my main question from topic June 6 - Place sunpot June 7: Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is: Assuming: 1. the solar barycenter is influenced in direction of jupiter 2. the heliosphere has a direction towards the galactic center and incoming interstellar winds Wouldn't it mean that when Jupiter is on the side of the solar system closest to the galactic center and interstellar medium (Scorpius, Sagittarius, etc.) it would indicate a time of solar minimum and associated enhanced cosmic radiation? Likewise, the opposite should be true as well: When Jupiter is farthest from the galactic center and interstallar medium (constellation Orion) it would indicate a time of solar maximum, lower cosmic radiation. So from what I've learned, cosmic radiation has little to do with solar cycles, but rather how the Sun behaves when it need to conserve velocity changes. From the AVRIX: "While the torsional oscillations appear to be too weak to significantly influence the Sun’s magnetic activity (Cameron et al., 2016), there is evidence to indicate that they (quite remarkably) extend as coherent flows throughout the depth of the convection zone (Howe et al., 2000, 2005; Antia & Basu, 2000; Verontsov et al., 2002; Howe, 2009). Clearly the rotational variability of the Sun, as evidenced by the torsional oscillations, is intimately connected with the solar magnetic cycle and hence with the underlying mechanism(s) of the solar dynamo." This tells me that the Sun conserves angular momentum by changing its internal flow rates. So, imagine if the Sun was an ocean, and each tight turn around the barycenter caused a wave, which took 11 years to reach the surface of the ocean, bubbling up from the ocean floor, when the wave crests the surface, we see sunspots, flares etc.. The wide turns around the barycenter means there won't be a wave rising up from the ocean and this would result in a solar minimum. Here is the image from the AVRIX showing what this "ocean" might look like: These currents from within the Sun can take 11 years to reach the equator, so the waves we see on the surface can be from 11ish years prior, not from the real-time conjunctions and alignments. NASA/Marshall Solar Physics: "Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents. These currents are generated within the Sun by the flow of the Sun's hot, ionized gases. We observe a variety of flows on the Sun's surface and within its interior. Nearly all of these flows may contribute in one way or another to the production of the Sun's magnetic field." 6 hours ago, Bry said: Thanks everyone! It sure has been hot lately where I am, hope for some storming relief tomorrow (rain or geomagnetic, I'll take it!) Thanks for all your consolidation and interest/support Bry, this conversation has been very enlightening and educational! 5 hours ago, David Silver said: Ok, this is infinitely fascinating. I think a lot about the Sun hurtling through space, orbiting the galactic center which is also hurtling through space, and sometimes try to do the math of how fast we humans are actually moving right now…I think about it so much I wrote a rock opera about it, I mean. Seriously. Thats cool! 5 hours ago, David Silver said: And yes, that strangely interacting electromagnetic energy > gravity. This is where I'm trying to explore, but I don't think its electromagnetic directly, I think its angular momentum conservation perturbing/changing the flow of the Sun's currents. A poetic view: The ocean of fire has slow-moving waves of plasma cresting into flares. 5 hours ago, David Silver said: Whoa, everything IS energy. On a vast scale. I understand what you are saying, and to add to this statement, energy is conserved over time, returning to zero. 5 hours ago, David Silver said: Im barely smart enough to read this thread. Looking forward to more… You have the smarts David! Edited June 12, 2022 by Archmonoth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted June 12, 2022 Share Posted June 12, 2022 Here is another very important article that debunks the interior theory. Only a smaal part of the Sun generates sunspot activity! [1712.01247] Evidence for a shallow thin magnetic structure and solar dynamo: the driver of torsional oscillations https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01247 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bry Posted June 12, 2022 Share Posted June 12, 2022 I feel the same way! Barely smart enough but I think we're talking about gravitational force still at the moment so I think I'm still following.. if there is an agreed upon mass for our galaxy and distances! Here's a song that I've heard for years about blaming fires on the sun and stars from an awesome local band... "And Orion's still laughing, he's holding his sides As he rolls on the floor in the sky.." Forgive me for going off topic, its just the lyrics totally on point with this topic... Orion is galactic arm we're on and direction of least cosmic radiation in our solar system.. and tied to our solar maximum? Kinda became a premonition that seeded the idea in my mind that our 2020 czu lightning complex was related to the solar miniumum by way of cosmic rays enhancing cloud nuclei and thus lightning... Anyways, back to the main topic! Hard to focus on a hot day in crowded cali housing and I still gotta figure out how to fix my car belts and pump... more rocket science.. http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/Evid_Based_Climate_Sci/Ev_Based_Climate_Sci_Chap14.pdf The Relationship of Sunspot Cycles to Gravitational Stresses on the Sun: Results of a Proof-of-Concept Simulation This article only looks at barycenter effects in one dimension, no z component, no effects from galactic core.. But does map solar barycenter and solar cycles and finds they match better strangely when they flip the signs between sun cycles...I found that strange and hard to understand because they seem interchangeable, or nonconsequential to exchange. This easier to read article mentions how tidal and barycentric effects are different mostly, and that confused me: "It is important to distinguish between tidal forces on the sun, and the motion of the sun about the barycenter of the solar system. Tidal forces are due primarily to the inner planets, and involve differential gravitational force between the planet’s subpoint on the sun, and the limb of the sun. Correlation between solar activity and tidal forces has been shown (Hung, 2007; Bigg, 1967), but not with the overall sunspot cycle. On the other hand, the sun’s motion about the barycenter, shown in Fig. 1, is determined mainly by the four giant planets: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. This distinction is also emphasized by Fairbridge and Shirley (1987)" But perhaps that is why gravity is considered a weaker force than electromagnetic, strong, and weak? Because it only influences the planets close to our sun but not farther objects? I guess what I'm asking is why tidal is different than barycenter effects if tidal requires being close and barycenter requires being farther. Does this explain why barycenter isn't necessarily the center of gravity? 13 hours ago, WildWill said: The ratio and the amount are not overly important, just trying to express that there is an additive pull towards the galactic core. Each planet in alignment would add more acceleration and equivalent conservation. I think Anarchmonoth said this.. oof keeping track is getting hard when we repost without the right person's name! I hadn't initially considered the gravitational effect of the galactic core on our solar system barycenter, only as a point source and direction for cosmic radiation! That makes sense that it makes our sun wobble. I assume our heliosphere is still pointed in the galactic core direction as well as towards oncoming interstellar winds. It also makes a ton of sense that energy is conserved or transferred when there is an angular change in momentum (direction), and that might contribute ultimately to energy transferred to our sun and manifest as sunspots with magnetic crochet loops poking through when they erupt. I am unsure how much any of these force values will matter to compare if they are all needed for an accurate calculation anyways. Reminds me of the similar barycentric-like paths they made back in the day to rationalize the earth being the center of our solar system Geocentric Theory map to rationalize how planets move around the earth:... hahah Don't these look like our solar system barycenter depictions? lol... Could that possibly mean our perspective is off and we should be looking from the center of our galaxies perspective or better still, our universe? From the geist of it, it seems like even though the distance between the galactic core and sun is much larger (8000 parsecs instead of 8), and the galaxy mass itself might be 2 orders of magnitude larger, does that mean the galactic core has a larger effect on our solar system barycenter than previously said in earlier posts? Or its unclear if the mass of our galaxy is off by many orders of magnitude as well.. 5 hours ago, WildWill said: I made a mistake… regarding the barycenter of the galaxy, the Milky Way is estimated as having 100-400 Billion stars, not 1 Billion. Two orders of magnitude larger. The mass of those 1-400 B stars + mass of all the interstellar gas, nebulae, black holes, dark matter, dark energy and the N and S Magellanic Clouds - they orbit the galaxy close enough to include… Thats a lot of mass! Yet still not enough to account for the rotation rate of the galaxy without the theory of inflation. And, I’m not sure inflation fully explains it. IT = stars at the outer limb of the spiral arms are moving faster than they would be expected to, based upon the estimated force of the Milky Way’s gravity… but I haven’t really been keeping up on that.. I thought we didn't need to consider the entire mass of the galaxy when calculating its force on our solar system barycenter. Just the stuff inside the radius our solar system is from the galactic core. That is assuming there is much mass at all outside of our galactic radius and its not just clustered at the center like our solar system mass being 1.0014 solar masses (our solar system mass is mostly sun). Milky Way Galaxy radius = 60,000 light years solar system radius from galaxy core = 27,000 light years 27/60 x100 = 45% So I assume only 45% of the Milky way Galaxy mass should apply to our solar system based off our radius. Please correct me if I'm wrong or if this is irrelevant because of the point source being most of the mass and that is factored in when you take the radius anyways.. I'm gonna have to make an excel sheet to keep track of all these numbers and exponents! Its hard to find consistently accepted numbers for the galaxy mass! 18 hours ago, Archmonoth said: 18 hours ago, Newbie said: Are you able to focus on the couple of years of Solar Max. and Solar Min. during these two cycles and relate it to the positioning of Jupiter and so on and see if there a correlation? I will look into this, however the article Patrick linked has lots of answers to questions about the distribution of angular momentum, including the acceleration that Jupiter causes (which is about 1 mm) which doesn't account for the changes in angular momentum being observed. -Archmonoth me - This might not be the answer you are looking for but here is repeat of an old post suggestion I made regarding being able to see the phenomena with online solar system models. Using solar system scope you can check out all the solar max and minimum dates by spinning jupiter around the sun 25 times for all 25 documented solar cycles, and see what constellation they are in as well. Jupiters location during minimums seems to shift around quite a bit hence why interstellar winds might factor into why our cosmic radiation source might not just be coming from our galactic core but outside. https://www.solarsystemscope.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles This is why I initially brought this topic up... because its so gosh darn visible with our modern day solar system modeling and known solar max and min dates! However, I'm seeing that Scott McIntosh is rather upset that people think solar cycles and sunspot activity are the same recently so maybe it doesn't line up completely according to experts. I hope we're not misrepresenting this assumption! 1 hour ago, Archmonoth said: So from what I've learned, cosmic radiation has little to do with solar cycles, but rather how the Sun behaves when it need to conserve velocity changes. So does that mean we still experience enhanced cosmic radiation during solar minimums due to lack of solar activity protecting/shielding us with the heliosphere? And less cosmic radiation when sun activity/heliosphere is more active? I guess I figured there was some solar system location component but if the effects of the galactic core are so small from being so far away that it might not matter which side of the solar system you are on. 1 hour ago, Archmonoth said: "Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents. These currents are generated within the Sun by the flow of the Sun's hot, ionized gases. We observe a variety of flows on the Sun's surface and within its interior. Nearly all of these flows may contribute in one way or another to the production of the Sun's magnetic field." This must be what Scott McIntosh meant when he said the solar cycle was dictated more by whats going on internally in the sun than around it. Thanks so much for helping us understand this very complex, very exciting article Patrick shared, and look forward to reading more! 2 minutes ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said: Here is another very important article that debunks the interior theory. Only a smaal part of the Sun generates sunspot activity! [1712.01247] Evidence for a shallow thin magnetic structure and solar dynamo: the driver of torsional oscillations https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01247 Oh boy! I was waiting for this! Debunking the interior theory here we go! Thanks for sharing patrick! Ok, I really got to stop and learn how to fix my car now! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archmonoth Posted June 12, 2022 Share Posted June 12, 2022 1 hour ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said: Here is another very important article that debunks the interior theory. Only a smaal part of the Sun generates sunspot activity! [1712.01247] Evidence for a shallow thin magnetic structure and solar dynamo: the driver of torsional oscillations https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01247 How does it debunk? The Tachocline is still spinning inside the Sun, causing sheer. (sheer caused by the outer convention zone moving slower.) Perhaps I'm not reading the study correctly, perhaps you can explain? 1 hour ago, Bry said: I feel the same way! Barely smart enough but I think we're talking about gravitational force still at the moment so I think I'm still following.. if there is an agreed upon mass for our galaxy and distances! I'm not entirely sure it matters, since the solar cycles and the Sun's activity might be like a heartbeat. I think the gravitational force is the shape/route the barycenter takes. The route is smooth and doesn't seem to cause acceleration, but the Sun has to conserve its velocity during the tighter turns. Deep within the Sun the tachocline is spinning, perhaps faster, much like how a pulsar would spin, the outer shell called the convection zone floats around it, and this is where we see the solar activity. 1 hour ago, Bry said: Here's a song that I've heard for years about blaming fires on the sun and stars from an awesome local band... "And Orion's still laughing, he's holding his sides As he rolls on the floor in the sky.." Forgive me for going off topic, its just the lyrics totally on point with this topic... Orion is galactic arm we're on and direction of least cosmic radiation in our solar system.. and tied to our solar maximum? Kinda became a premonition that seeded the idea in my mind that our 2020 czu lightning complex was related to the solar miniumum by way of cosmic rays enhancing cloud nuclei and thus lightning... What a cool inspiration! I don't know how accurate it is, but it is quite poetic. 1 hour ago, Bry said: But does map solar barycenter and solar cycles and finds they match better strangely when they flip the signs between sun cycles...I found that strange and hard to understand because they seem interchangeable, or nonconsequential to exchange. There does seem to be a correlation, but exactly what the mechanism is difficult to parse through. My guess is that when the barycenter makes a tight curve (closing circle) or a wide turn (opening the circle) determines how the Sun react. The alignments of the planets don't change the barycenter, but the planet's mass/distance does. So the planets are shaping the route the Sun take, then as it approaches a tighter turn through this route, some part of it, the momentum moves causes the magnetic field to increase in strength or changes something in Jupiter/Saturn, or perhaps changes some oscillations deep within cause little bubbles or waves to surface. However, what we can see, is that during spotless days, weeks, or months in a stretch, conjunctions don't seem to cause sunspots or change solar cycles. 1 hour ago, Bry said: This easier to read article mentions how tidal and barycentric effects are different mostly, and that confused me: "It is important to distinguish between tidal forces on the sun, and the motion of the sun about the barycenter of the solar system. Tidal forces are due primarily to the inner planets, and involve differential gravitational force between the planet’s subpoint on the sun, and the limb of the sun. Correlation between solar activity and tidal forces has been shown (Hung, 2007; Bigg, 1967), but not with the overall sunspot cycle. On the other hand, the sun’s motion about the barycenter, shown in Fig. 1, is determined mainly by the four giant planets: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. This distinction is also emphasized by Fairbridge and Shirley (1987)" But perhaps that is why gravity is considered a weaker force than electromagnetic, strong, and weak? Because it only influences the planets close to our sun but not farther objects? I guess what I'm asking is why tidal is different than barycenter effects if tidal requires being close and barycenter requires being farther. Does this explain why barycenter isn't necessarily the center of gravity? Tidal forces are relative exchanges between objects, like the Earth and Moon. Imagine 2 Sumo wrestlers, if one of them is x2 as big, they will push the other around the ring easier. The barycenter is the ring they are wrestling in, determined by how much space the Sumo wrestlers need. The planets and the Sun and all the mass of the solar system need a ring to wrestle in, and their movement carves out the route, and the shape is the barycenter. 1 hour ago, Bry said: It also makes a ton of sense that energy is conserved or transferred when there is an angular change in momentum (direction), and that might contribute ultimately to energy transferred to our sun and manifest as sunspots with magnetic crochet loops poking through when they erupt. I am unsure how much any of these force values will matter to compare if they are all needed for an accurate calculation anyways. Excellent summary! 1 hour ago, Bry said: From the geist of it, it seems like even though the distance between the galactic core and sun is much larger (8000 parsecs instead of 8), and the galaxy mass itself might be 2 orders of magnitude larger, does that mean the galactic core has a larger effect on our solar system barycenter than previously said in earlier posts? Or its unclear if the mass of our galaxy is off by many orders of magnitude as well.. I think the galactic core has a smaller effect on the barycenter than I originally posted, thanks to Will and Newbie for the correction. If the core was closer, our barycenter would look a bit different, like having another Jupiter or Earth in our solar system. This could make tighter turns in the solar system for the Sun, and cause more need to conserve angular momentum. Again, Jupiter in Sagittarius is a strange one, but Jupiter is 25 degrees behind each solar cycle. Is Jupiter the Cause of the Solar Sunspot Cycle? • 3rd From Sol (paulkiser.com) I think its corelative, not causative, which is to say the Sun's heartbeat is similar to other heartbeats in the solar system, like Jupiter's orbit. 1 hour ago, Bry said: I thought we didn't need to consider the entire mass of the galaxy when calculating its force on our solar system barycenter. Just the stuff inside the radius our solar system is from the galactic core. That is assuming there is much mass at all outside of our galactic radius and its not just clustered at the center like our solar system mass being 1.0014 solar masses (our solar system mass is mostly sun). Milky Way Galaxy radius = 60,000 light years solar system radius from galaxy core = 27,000 light years 27/60 x100 = 45% So I assume only 45% of the Milky way Galaxy mass should apply to our solar system based off our radius. Please correct me if I'm wrong or if this is irrelevant because of the point source being most of the mass and that is factored in when you take the radius anyways.. The distance is the big limitation for affecting the local barycenter. So if the mass is X, the distance from X divided by 2 reduces the gravitational pull by a factor of 4. So only nearby things, except for nearby blackholes or something, will not have much if any effect on the barycenter or tidal forces. My original idea was that the galactic core's pull would be additive with Jupiter, but Jupiter doesn't pull on the Sun very much, even though it affects the barycenter. 1 hour ago, Bry said: So does that mean we still experience enhanced cosmic radiation during solar minimums due to lack of solar activity protecting/shielding us with the heliosphere? And less cosmic radiation when sun activity/heliosphere is more active? This is a good question, I'm not sure, my guess is that the different in solar min/max is not enough for the cosmic radiation to affect any planets or the Sun. 1 hour ago, Bry said: This must be what Scott McIntosh meant when he said the solar cycle was dictated more by whats going on internally in the sun than around it. I think I agree with this statement the more I learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted June 12, 2022 Share Posted June 12, 2022 (edited) 7 hours ago, Bry said: So does that mean we still experience enhanced cosmic radiation during solar minimums due to lack of solar activity protecting/shielding us with the heliosphere? And less cosmic radiation when sun activity/heliosphere is more active? Hello Bry, When cosmic rays hit the atmosphere of the Earth they produce a spray of secondary particles which include neutrons. Detectors count neutrons as a proxy for cosmic rays. They have been recorded since 1964. When the Suns magnetic field becomes weak it allows extra cosmic rays into the solar system. Cosmic rays naturally wax and wane within the 11 year solar cycle. During solar minimum cosmic rays are strong and during solar maximum cosmic rays are weak. There are health implications for polar air travellers and astronauts during these high neutron counts. The upper atmosphere is impacted also. Newbie 13 hours ago, David Silver said: Ok, this is infinitely fascinating. I think a lot about the Sun hurtling through space, orbiting the galactic center which is also hurtling through space. It is a fascinating thought and the rotating Earth (with us on it) is hurtling through space too. Makes you feel small. ... and now back to the thread! Edited June 12, 2022 by Newbie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted June 12, 2022 Share Posted June 12, 2022 (edited) Bry: I see I didn't explain myself properly, sorry. Yes during solar minimum we experience enhanced cosmic radiation here on Earth, because the Suns magnetic field is weakened and is evidenced by an increase in neutrons counted by sensors set up for this purpose. During solar maximum cosmic radiation is reduced as the Suns magnetic field strengthens, this is evidenced by a reduction in neutrons detected. The heliospere is formed by the Suns magnetic field so its borders shrink and expand according to the strength of the magnetic field. Edited June 12, 2022 by Newbie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave Posted June 12, 2022 Share Posted June 12, 2022 This topic - the interaction between solar-system dynamics and the Sun's internal dynamics - is intriguing; and has been long discussed. (A related question is: Even if a peculiar gravitational interaction is suspected is a peculiar electromagnetc hypotheses also needed?) On the one hand the statistical evidence, that something is going on, is strong: https://www.researchgate.net/project/The-Climate-Clock On the other hand the proposed physical explanations rely on forces which seem too weak. The various hypotheses can be accessed via the following site, although the site seems inactive now. Basically, it is all about conjunctions of the Giant Planets as viwed from the Sun: https://landscheidt.wordpress.com/laymans-sunspot-count/ We must remember that the bodies of the solar system are freely falling around each other. It is only by dropping the simplification, 'everything can be treated as a particle,' and introducing tidal influences, that the idea of internal gravitationally-induced stress in the Sun can be introduced*. The picture of the barycentre moving in and around the Sun is misleading. The barycentre shows the DIRECTION in which the Sun is accelerating but it is not the place where the pull on the Sun ORIGINATES. * For example, by noticing that the pull of Jupiter on the side of the Sun facing Jupiter is greater than the pull on the side facing away, because of the significant width of the Sun. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildWill Posted June 12, 2022 Author Share Posted June 12, 2022 I wanted to interject a few thoughts. There area many a quantum physicist who would vehemently disagree with me, but… I am of the opinion that all of the forces we use to describe interactions are the same! In other words, the grand unification theory. The Strong Nuclear force is gravity acting on the femtometer scale, while the,Weak Nuclear Force is gravity acting on a scale several orders of magnitude larger. Electromagnetism is a little different in that it uses gravity as a conduit for the transfer of energy from one object to another. Also note, it has been mentioned that the magnetic fields on the sun are created by electricity…. That’s not quite accurate. The first thing to note is that you cannot have one without the other. Every magnetic field has an electrical field and every electrical field has a magnetic field. The fields are at 90* to each other. That’s why it’s called “Electromagnetism”. EM is really more about the transfer of energy. I also believe that with our 5 senses and technology, there are things within the universe, other dimensions if you like, that we have no perception of, except we can see/feel some second and third order effects that enter our realm of perception. I also kinda view gravity as the tortoise - as in the tortoise and the hare. Slow and steady…. A couple of other things I’ve seen in multiple posts: I keep seeing an “acceleration of 1mm”. The units for acceleration are m/s/s or ft/s/s [m/s^2]. So I’m not really understanding what Archmonoth? David? Are trying to say with this… As for the conservation of angular momentum, angular momentum is conserved in a closed system with no friction (which doesn’t exist!). For most “problems” we look at, the effects from outside the “system” and friction are so small we can ignore them. It is true that when where look at the gravity inside of a sphere, we can ignore everything outside of the radius of the point we are looking at - if and only if - we are talking about a sphere with a uniform gravitational field. In other words, the density at any given distance from the center must be uniform… This does not apply to the solar system as the gravitational field is not uniform - if it was, the barycenter would not move! (With regards to the sun, other stuff… we wouldn’t have planets, only asteroid belts with uniform density at any given distance from the sun! It kinda applies to the galaxy, but it’s not quite uniform and if you include the S & L Magellanic Clouds, it no longer applies… 5 hours ago, dave said: This topic - the interaction between solar-system dynamics and the Sun's internal dynamics - is intriguing; and has been long discussed. (A related question is: Even if a peculiar gravitational interaction is suspected is a peculiar electromagnetc hypotheses also needed?) On the one hand the statistical evidence, that something is going on, is strong: https://www.researchgate.net/project/The-Climate-Clock On the other hand the proposed physical explanations rely on forces which seem too weak. The various hypotheses can be accessed via the following site, although the site seems inactive now. Basically, it is all about conjunctions of the Giant Planets as viwed from the Sun: https://landscheidt.wordpress.com/laymans-sunspot-count/ We must remember that the bodies of the solar system are freely falling around each other. It is only by dropping the simplification, 'everything can be treated as a particle,' and introducing tidal influences, that the idea of internal gravitationally-induced stress in the Sun can be introduced*. The picture of the barycentre moving in and around the Sun is misleading. The barycentre shows the DIRECTION in which the Sun is accelerating but it is not the place where the pull on the Sun ORIGINATES. No, it represents the vector sum of all the gravitational forces in the solar system. It is the direction in which the acceleration vector of all of the planets’ barycenters points to. as well as the sun! and everything else in the solar system. * For example, by noticing that the pull of Jupiter on the side of the Sun facing Jupiter is greater than the pull on the side facing away, because of the significant width of the Sun. It is not so much the width of the sun, but the direction of the pull. The Jupiter facing side of the sun is pulled in a direction perpendicular to the surface, while on the limbs and poles, the force pulls in the direction parallel to the surface. So the sides are being pulled toward the front. Tides here on earth are primarily influenced by the moon and the sun. Jupiter, however, plays a role as well, albeit very small. The rest of the stuff in the solar system as well, but to a very very small extent. Jupiter, at one time, migrated to the inner solar system and then back out to where it is now! It “herds” the asteroids in the belt between Mars and Jupiter, and generally prevents those asteroids from entering the inner solar system. Every now and then, Jupiter’s gravity will influence an asteroid or comet (usually from the Ort cloud) and send it into the inner solar system. Well, the,sun,just came out and we have spots! Gotta go out in the back yard and check ‘em out. I just picked up a pair of very narrow band pass etalons (filters) centered on H-alpha (656.28nm) and only 5 angstroms wide! I don’t think it’s small enough to see into the chromosphere, but we shall see what it can do. I want an H-alpha filter with a band pass about 0.5 A wide - to see into the chromosphere. H-alpha is the alpha absorption/emission line for hydrogen. Most of the far uv images we see here are from the various absorption lines for iron (Fe), determined by energy state of iron as it absorbs or emits photons… although I think it’s 304 looks at the absorption line for He, and shows the upper chromosphere and parts of the transition zone… Before I go though, I would mention that the sheer zones within the sun really intrigue me. On the surface, you have rotation at the poles much slower than at the equator, thus a sunspot on the surface would tend to get sheered (as can be readily visualized by looking at the magnetic regions around what was 3028 & 3029. Look at how the bottom has moved farther west than the top, introducing a bit od spin with the sheer and also causing it to move towards the poles. Almost looking at the butterfly diagram as the ”life of a magnetic region”. I also found this, I find it to be a very interesting https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-wobbling-of-the-Sun-relative-to-the-center-of-mass-of-the-solar-system-A-Monthly_fig3_259705165 The article is worth a read… it shows the orbit of the sun around the barycenter of the solar system in 3D as well as projections on a couple of planes… Cheers! Alexander the Great (I like the cool pictures!) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 You say "No, it represents the vector sum of all the gravitational forces in the solar system." Um. That sum is ZERO. (I suppose a point can represent a zero vector!) If the Sun is pulling with X trillion tons of force on Jupiter along the line between them, Jupiter is pulling on the Sun with X trillion tons of force, along the same line between them, but in the opposite direction. The force exerted by the Sun is represented by the vector X and the force exerted by Jupiter by the vector -X. X + (-X) = 0. And similarly for all the pairs of bodies in the system. It is Newton's Third Law. And so, a lot of zero vectors add up to zero. This does actually need the assumption that gravity does its magic instantaneously or the pulls will not be exactly opposite in direction. Which is the way gravity does work, but nobody knows why. Of course since the various forces have different points of application they do not 'cancel' each other for all purposes, and their equivalent or representative geometrical vectors can not be put together, tail-to-head; i.e. they are not 'general' vector-quantities. But really you are agreeing with me! We agree that each of the separate pulls on the Sun is caused* by a planet a long way distant from the Sun (or by other stars too far away to matter for our purposes). BECAUSE of the distance, the gradient of each contributing gravitational field is small in the region of space occupied by the Sun, even though the Sun is big by human standards. Hence, as change in this gradient (of all fields together) is what counts when it comes to making the body of the Sun "jiggle," my statement holds that the proposed tidal forces will give a weak input of energy compared to the normal activity of the Sun. All I meant by saying the barycentre diagrams are misleading is they make it LOOK LIKE the Sun is chasing around a real body, situated near to it and (oddly) sometimes within it. Ninety-nine percent of the mass of the Solar System is in the Sun. Therefore the barycentre of the Solar System is going to be close to (the centre of) the Sun. The phrase "the [centre of the] Sun orbits around the fixed barycentre" exemplifies the presentational problem as it elevates the barycentre from a computational convenience to a boss bit of matter. That phenomenon (Snoopy chasing a highly abstract rabbit) would in any case be a doubtful way of making the Sun's body jiggle since any surface** tides must be engendered by the spin of the Sun about itself; and, during a single Carrington rotation, the barycentre will be almost stationary; e.g. to someone standing on the North Pole of the Sun facing a fixed distant star the bearing of the barycentre will hardly change. * Or "originates on." **Theoretically there might be pycnic tides of low frequency and, indeed, this is the only way I can see the Conjunctions of the Giant Planets having an effect. "...you cannot have [a magnetic field] without [an electric field]." Can you detect an electric field in the vicinity of your fridge-magnet? I do not think so. Or a magnetic field in the space between the terminals of a charged storage battery? Again, no. Because (standard textbook definitions): Electric fields arise from electric charges or changing [sic] magnetic fields. Magnetic fields arise from permanent magnets or changing [sic] electric fields. In the last, "changing electric fields" is sometimes "electric charges in motion." Granted these defintions involve weasel words ("changing" or "in motion") but in most practical situations we can make the defintions operational. For example we can take a permanent magnet and hold a length of conducting wire near it. Nothing will happen. There is no electric field. Make the conducting wire into a circle. Nothing. Push the magnet into the circle (it will take a steady effort) and a current will flow in the circle so long as the magnet is moving. Stop and the current stops. Pull it out (it wiill take a steady effort) and a current will flow in the circle in the opposite direction. To understand these facts we imagine the field of the magnet as stationary at first with respect to the conductor and a magnetic field represented by magnetic 'lines' as tied to the magnet and therefore these lines also stationary with respect to the conductor. An electric field is created AROUND the wire when the conductor is 'cutting' those lines, i.e. while relative motion occurs. An electric field has appeared. Our effort has been stored as energy within the field. Or rather we can express it that way. The current within the wire is a secondary effect actually and the field dies as the energy is wasted in heating the wire. Not at all a case of the magnet inducing the electrons to move which THEN creates an external field. With alternating current, no charge at all moves in the body of a wire. Which is why the wire offers no resistance and does not heat up. And why transmission lines use AC. So we have made our definition of "changing" operational and crystal clear - in this situation. It does not matter a happorth whether the field(s) is/are changing for the Universe as a whole. Who knows what this even means? So long as Science only knew of STATIC fields there was no known connection between magnetism and electricity. Electromagnetics found the connection in the phenomena of CHANGING fields and dynamic induction. Electromagnetic radiation is a special case. It is the (basically mysterious) phenomenon whereby a changing magnetic field engenders the changing electric field that engenders the changing magnetic field that engenders the changing electric...ad infinitum and the whole self- referential nonsense zooms away from the starting point (a short-tempered electron usually) through empty space in one direction or all directions, sometimes as a dollop of energy and sometimes as a perpetually diluting smear of energy, in touch with the whole universe or subbornly individualistic. Or something like that. I would really like it to be true that Solar System Dynamics rules the Sun and ultimately Earth's climate, 'cause I am a terrible climate-denier, I am. But I am not convinced of the mechanism. WildWill, I should not have said "You." (A) When I read it now after posting, it sounds rude. (B) It has taken me ten minutes to find out exactly to whom I thought I was responding! This is a site with some editing oddities. I corrected my formatting on my screen and then it posted it with the original format - which looks a bit mad. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildWill Posted June 13, 2022 Author Share Posted June 13, 2022 HiI also found this, I find it to be a very interesting https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-wobbling-of-the-Sun-relative-to-the-center-of-mass-of-the-solar-system-A-Monthly_fig3_259705165 The article is worth a read… it shows the orbit of the sun around the barycenter of the solar system in 3D as well as projections on a couple of planes… Cheers! Alexander the Great (I like the cool pictures!) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildWill Posted June 13, 2022 Author Share Posted June 13, 2022 1 hour ago, dave said: You say "No, it represents the vector sum of all the gravitational forces in the solar system." Um. That sum is ZERO. (I suppose a point can represent a zero vector!) At the barycenter, it is zero - it’s the center of gravity of the system, not the center of mass as many people like to think… The center of mass and the center of gravity are only co-located in a uniform gravitational field… If the Sun is pulling with X trillion tons of force on Jupiter along the line between them, Jupiter is pulling on the Sun with X trillion tons of force, along the same line between them, but in the opposite direction. The force exerted by the Sun is represented by the vector X and the force exerted by Jupiter by the vector -X. X + (-X) = 0. And similarly for all the pairs of bodies in the system. It is Newton's Third Law. And so, a lot of zero vectors add up to zero. This does actually need the assumption that gravity does its magic instantaneously or the pulls will not be exactly opposite in direction. Which is the way gravity does work, but nobody knows why. Of course since the various forces have different points of application they do not 'cancel' each other for all purposes, and their equivalent or representative geometrical vectors can not be put together, tail-to-head; i.e. they are not 'general' vector-quantities. But really you are agreeing with me! We agree that each of the separate pulls on the Sun is caused* by a planet a long way distant from the Sun (or by other stars too far away to matter for our purposes). BECAUSE of the distance, the gradient of each contributing gravitational field is small in the region of space occupied by the Sun, even though the Sun is big by human standards. Hence, as change in this gradient (of all fields together) is what counts when it comes to making the body of the Sun "jiggle," my statement holds that the proposed tidal forces will give a weak input of energy compared to the normal activity of the Sun. I am not sure I agree it’s that. Our solar system orbits the barycenter of our galaxy - so all those stars, etc, are not too far away, not to matter! All I meant by saying the barycentre diagrams are misleading is they make it LOOK LIKE the Sun is chasing around a real body, situated near to it and (oddly) sometimes within it. Ninety-nine percent of the mass of the Solar System is in the Sun. Therefore the barycentre of the Solar System is going to be close to (the centre of) the Sun. The phrase "the [centre of the] Sun orbits around the fixed barycentre" exemplifies the presentational problem as it elevates the barycentre from a computational convenience to a boss bit of matter. Many people like to use the barycenter of the solar system as being located at the origin of an “inertial reference frame” - Inertial Reference Frames do not really exist - they are a mathematical construct used for convenience and it would be very difficult (impossible) to use a Euclidean Space for anything. In other words, you must have a reference point which is not accelerating, or the math gets really ugly really fast. We could define our Inertial Reference Frame using the barycenter of the Milky Way and then the barycenter of the solar system would appear to “wobble” a bit in its orbit around the barycenter of the galaxy. We can step back again and look at the barycenter of the local cluster as barycenter or another step and use the barycenter of the local supercluster - but none of these truly represent an Inertial Reference Frame. That phenomenon (Snoopy chasing a highly abstract rabbit) would in any case be a doubtful way of making the Sun's body jiggle since any surface** tides must be engendered by the spin of the Sun about itself; and, during a single Carrington rotation, the barycentre will be almost stationary; e.g. to someone standing on the North Pole of the Sun facing a fixed distant star the bearing of the barycentre will hardly change. * Or "originates on." **Theoretically there might be pycnic tides of low frequency and, indeed, this is the only way I can see the Conjunctions of the Giant Planets having an effect. "...you cannot have [a magnetic field] without [an electric field]." Can you detect an electric field in the vicinity of your fridge-magnet? I do not think so. Or a magnetic field in the space between the terminals of a charged storage battery? Again, no. Because (standard textbook definitions): Electric fields arise from electric charges or changing [sic] magnetic fields. Magnetic fields arise from permanent magnets or changing [sic] electric fields. In the last, "changing electric fields" is sometimes "electric charges in motion." I am going to just double down here - you cannot have a magnetic field without an electrical field and you cannot have an electrical field without a magnetic field. Your counter examples are ALL wrong. I will refer you to Maxwell’s Equations here, not having time to explain electromagnetism… Granted these defintions involve weasel words ("changing" or "in motion") but in most practical situations we can make the defintions operational. For example we can take a permanent magnet and hold a length of conducting wire near it. Nothing will happen. There is no electric field. Make the conducting wire into a circle. Nothing. Push the magnet into the circle (it will take a steady effort) and a current will flow in the circle so long as the magnet is moving. Stop and the current stops. Pull it out (it wiill take a steady effort) and a current will flow in the circle in the opposite direction. To understand these facts we imagine the field of the magnet as stationary at first with respect to the conductor and a magnetic field represented by magnetic 'lines' as tied to the magnet and therefore these lines also stationary with respect to the conductor. An electric field is created AROUND the wire when the conductor is 'cutting' those lines, i.e. while relative motion occurs. An electric field has appeared. Our effort has been stored as energy within the field. Or rather we can express it that way. The current within the wire is a secondary effect actually and the field dies as the energy is wasted in heating the wire. Not at all a case of the magnet inducing the electrons to move which THEN creates an external field. With alternating current, no charge at all moves in the body of a wire. Which is why the wire offers no resistance and does not heat up. And why transmission lines use AC. First, transmission lines to have resistance and do heat up - just ask anyone in California when, during the summer, they are drawing a lot of power from the hydro plants in Oregon and Washington. The heat from all that electrical resistance causes the wires to sag - and then they can arc to a nearby tree. This caused a major power outage in SF during the 90s. I think you need to go back to electricity transmission school… Short answer - we are talking about power. The net flow is zero, but the POWER is the sum of instantaneous power increments. Instantaneous power is instantaneous voltage * instantaneous current. Total power is proportional to the square of current. (+)*(+)=(+); (-)*(-)=(+). Thus, it doesn’t matter whether the current is positive or negative. So we have made our definition of "changing" operational and crystal clear - in this situation. It does not matter a happorth whether the field(s) is/are changing for the Universe as a whole. Who knows what this even means? So long as Science only knew of STATIC fields there was no known connection between magnetism and electricity. Electromagnetics found the connection in the phenomena of CHANGING fields and dynamic induction. Electromagnetic radiation is a special case. It is the (basically mysterious) phenomenon whereby a changing magnetic field engenders the changing electric field that engenders the changing magnetic field that engenders the changing electric...ad infinitum and the whole self- referential nonsense zooms away from the starting point (a short-tempered electron usually) through empty space in one direction or all directions, sometimes as a dollop of energy and sometimes as a perpetually diluting smear of energy, in touch with the whole universe or subbornly individualistic. Or something like that. Or Or something like that?? You are correct in that at one time, electricity and magnetism were thought to be different phenomena, both are dynamic. Always. Maxwell’s Equations tie the two together and show that they are inseparable. Google it, Wikipedia or your local physics prof for that one.,. 1 hour ago, dave said: I would really like it to be true that Solar System Dynamics rules the Sun and ultimately Earth's climate, 'cause I am a terrible climate-denier, I am. But I am not convinced of the mechanism. I am not going,to get into climate change except to say that I am of the belief that the solar cycles and long term variations thereof are A driver for climate change, along with many others,.. WildWill, I should not have said "You." No worries there… you were addressing your comments to me, so that’s just fine. No ego issues here! (A) When I read it now after posting, it sounds rude. No worries here… didn’t really sound rude, just rushed.. as I am now, I hope I don’t come across as being rude! Just rushed! (B) It has taken me ten minutes to find out exactly to whom I thought I was responding! This is a site with some editing oddities. I had some editing issues with this post, but until now, it has been pretty normal/standard… I corrected my formatting on my screen and then it posted it with the original format - which looks a bit mad. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archmonoth Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, dave said: You say "No, it represents the vector sum of all the gravitational forces in the solar system." Um. That sum is ZERO. (I suppose a point can represent a zero vector!) If the Sun is pulling with X trillion tons of force on Jupiter along the line between them, Jupiter is pulling on the Sun with X trillion tons of force, along the same line between them, but in the opposite direction. The force exerted by the Sun is represented by the vector X and the force exerted by Jupiter by the vector -X. X + (-X) = 0. Totally agree. However, there is suggestion (which I agree with) that the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn share some angular momentum, similar to how the Moon and Earth interact. What this means in terms of solar activity seems up to some speculation. The Sun's magnetic field seems be a reservoir, as well as the convection zone. Rather than gravity, the Sun's momentum is exchanged between the objects, or expressed as convection zone turbulence. 5 hours ago, dave said: body of the Sun "jiggle," my statement holds that the proposed tidal forces will give a weak input of energy compared to the normal activity of the Sun. Agreed, and the ARVIX in the beginning of the thread has lots of useful science describing that the tidal forces are insufficient for the observed changes in momentum. The article also shows the correlation of changes in the Sun's momentum with sunspot activity. I think the tachocline (the area beneath the convection zone) is spinning and is regular and persistent, much like a heartbeat. This can be seen in other stars without convections zones like Pulsars. When the tachocline is then spinning closer to the barycenter this causes waves which rise to the surface, and their crest, or bubbles, or perturbance is then seen as solar activity. 2 hours ago, WildWill said: I am not going,to get into climate change except to say that I am of the belief that the solar cycles and long term variations thereof are A driver for climate change, along with many others,.. A driver perhaps, but current climate changes are directly caused by human activities. 2 hours ago, WildWill said: ... Our solar system orbits the barycenter of our galaxy - so all those stars, etc, are not too far away, not to matter! They don't seem to cause any changes in Sunspot activity directly, nor correlate with any changes in angular momentum. From my recent exploration, the Sun is too massive, and the distance is too far. Keep in mind these distances are incredibly far, and gravity effects dimmish very quickly, which is what the precursor calculations seem to show. The Sun simply doesn't reflect changes in velocity from external sources, and the angular momentum is only shared locally or conserved locally. This is part of the Inverse Square Law, which illustrates that distance can reduce effects to zero, to nothing. Energy and momentum are conserved and return to zero given time and distance. The types of masses found in the precursor calculation are no bigger than mercury, asteroids, and hundreds of nearby moons/NTOs, and don't reflect changes in the Sun's velocity or changes in solar activity. Again, there are conjunctions with the Sun during long stretches of spotless days. There seems to be no connection conjunctions with solar activity and nearby orbits of planets/moons. However, the mass of planets/objects does shape the barycenter, which has an indirect effect on when/how the Sun conserves momentum. Edited June 13, 2022 by Archmonoth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 A point charge such as a single electron does certainly act as a tiny magnet. So you could say that the electric field of the electron exists alongside a magnetic field. (Once again nobody has the slightest idea how this comes about.) However this has no consequences for a practically made net static charge such as may be created by rubbing amber with catfur. Such a net charge is made of trillions of electrons. Because of the multiplicity of orientations of the electrons there is never any net magnetic effect (no detectable field) at a distance from the static charge whereas there is a detectable electric field. Of course the unexpected nature of point charges leads into the interesting phenomena of diamagnetics and paramagnetics but this is going rather a long way from magnetic fields of the Sun. None of this has anything to do with Maxwell's theory (which was strictly phenomenological in any case) as electrons had not been discovered and nor their nature as individuals* If Wildwill has found in a laboratory experiment with a magnetic probe a magnetic field coexisting with a strictly static electric field and apparently dependent on the existence of that field I would be interested to see the published finding. * For what it is worth, it possible to hypothesize that they are not individual but instead every electron in the universe is merging and separating with every other one all the time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archmonoth Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, dave said: * For what it is worth, it possible to hypothesize that they are not individual but instead every electron in the universe is merging and separating with every other one all the time. Perhaps to add, or describe this a bit different, is that electromagnetism or charges both positive and negative (like in electrons) are disruptions in the electromagnetic field. The qualities of the field if they do not involve momentum are conserved over time, everywhere simultaneously. However, electrons do have mass, and momentum, and have a distance for which they are conserved through, rather than all electrons merging/separating from every other on all the time. Energy conserves over time, and momentum conserves through space/distance. Conservation: returns to zero through transitional symmetry. This is how I've learned to understand how General Relativity address variance in distance/radiance. There are particles with no mass, and they still have momentum due to mass-energy equivalence: Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia Edited June 13, 2022 by Archmonoth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildWill Posted June 13, 2022 Author Share Posted June 13, 2022 1 hour ago, dave said: A point charge such as a single electron does certainly act as a tiny magnet. So you could say that the electric field of the electron exists alongside a magnetic field. (Once again nobody has the slightest idea how this comes about.) However this has no consequences for a practically made net static charge such as may be created by rubbing amber with catfur. Such a net charge is made of trillions of electrons. Because of the multiplicity of orientations of the electrons there is never any net magnetic effect (no detectable field) at a distance from the static charge whereas there is a detectable electric field. Of course the unexpected nature of point charges leads into the interesting phenomena of diamagnetics and paramagnetics but this is going rather a long way from magnetic fields of the Sun. None of this has anything to do with Maxwell's theory (which was strictly phenomenological in any case) as electrons had not been discovered and nor their nature as individuals* If Wildwill has found in a laboratory experiment with a magnetic probe a magnetic field coexisting with a strictly static electric field and apparently dependent on the existence of that field I would be interested to see the published finding. * For what it is worth, it possible to hypothesize that they are not individual but instead every electron in the universe is merging and separating with every other one all the time. please don’t take this the wrong way, but… I’m not sure where you studied Physics, and I am afraid to ask. My father was a physicist (Texas A&M ‘63), I studied Physics at Texas A&M University as a part of the curriculum for Aerospace Engineering (Texas A&M ‘91). Aerospace Engineering is applied physics, nothing more. I also managed an “A” in every Physics course I ever took, thanks to my dad. He taught me well. I did drop out of graduate school, but I did get a year into my graduate studies. And was doing well… I really don’t think I am wrong here. I am not trying to brag here, just listing my credentials. When one obtains information from a source, it is important to consider the source… As I learned it, they are called “Maxwells Equations” not because he came up with them - because he didn’t. He put together Gauss’ and Ampere’s equations for magnetic and electric fields, Faraday’s Law with Lorentz Force Law - and Unified Electricity and Magnetism. He is the one who put together the equations that showed that one cannot exist without the other. They for the basis for so many technologies from optics to levitating trains. It is possible to greatly reduce or “cancel” a magnetic field - such as in twisted pair or coax. With twisted pair, you can start with two wires next to each other (as in original Ethernet cabling. The flow of electrons is in opposite directions, so much of the magnetic fields are cancelled, but not all, it is still there. Even with tightly twisted wires, there is some magnetic field which is not canceled. Please, just go to Google and type: ”can a magnetic field exist without an electrical field” then type: ”can an electrical field exist without a magnetic field” and just pick your source… the first thing that will come up is “No”. Go to Wikipedia and type in “Maxwells Equations” It would be a lot quicker than me putting together a class on electromagnetism, which I am not going to do. please don’t take my word for it. Do at least one of the three suggestions I have made above. Give me that much! Ignorance is such an easy condition to cure, but so many refuse to admit they don’t know and choose to remain ignorant. In my view, that’s stupid. Again, please don’t take this the wrong way, but I am just stunned by your post. The coupling of electrical and magnetic fields was just beat into me throughout my studies. I really don’t want to offend you, in any way. But, I must state categorically that you are mistaken, dead wrong. WW & A PS - I do believe the electron had not yet been discovered… I think that happened around the turn of the century. However, electricity and the concept of charge had been discovered. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildWill Posted June 14, 2022 Author Share Posted June 14, 2022 I ran across this on researchgate.net… It uses 1/1000 of an AU on the scale, but shows the sun’s position relative to the barycenter. I am still looking for the model from which this was created. It had to have been some sort of model, as each loop represents 11-12 years, and we don’t have data or “proxies” for this type of data. Unlike some of the other diagrams, which look like they were made with a Spirograph, this appears to be “chaotic”. I would really like to analyze the equations that created it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bry Posted June 15, 2022 Share Posted June 15, 2022 Sorry it’s been awhile, been busy and crazy of course during space weather events (rare to get weather here with cme and flare activity at the same time!) I see I have some catching up to do on understanding the consensus at the moment regarding planetary, gravity (tidal) vs barycentric effects on solar activity as well as electromagnetic! Thanks for establishing the interchangeable or interdependent nature of magnetic fields and electric fields. It does get confusing but makes sense the planets with magnetic fields orbiting the sun might influence its activity more via change in electric fields. Also: Thanks newbie! I get confused if cosmic radiation is due to a point source (from galaxy center and outside the galaxy) and what direction that is coming from; or if it’s from apparent lack of solar activity. I also assume our heliosphere (suns magnetic field) is pointing the same direction (towards galactic core) protecting our solar system from cosmic radiation as solar activity waxes and wanes with max’s and minimums. I was wondering how our perception of apparent cosmic radiation is influenced by any big difference in cosmic radiation from one side of the solar system to the other relative to our galaxy center...if that makes any sense. I wish this was easier to ask. Speaking of inverse relationships, I found an article stating the obvious from viewing larger planet positions on solar system scope...: Larger multiple planetary alignments have an inverse relationship on sun spot activity which makes sense with my initial observation and question: Larger planets aligning near the galactic core (Sagittarius/scorpius solar system longitude) is associated with enhanced cosmic radiation and decreased sunspot formation and activity. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344234331_On_the_decrease_of_sunspot_activity_and_absence_of_severe_space_weather_conditions_during_the_multiple_planetary_conjunction_periods_of_1850-2000_AD !!! I was wondering how his might affect our perception of sunspot activity at the moment.. or in general considering there is sunspot activity speculation goin on for upcoming sunspots or other eruptions and their direction for the next week. There is a multiplanet alignment perpendicular to the earth relative to the sun at the moment. This made me think we would see more activity in the west limb where they are located, but it might be the opposite or latent or on the opposite side of the sun. In fact it might have led to that lull we’ve had for awhile despite alignments and then sudden awakening in flares when cmes hit or erupt at the same time. I was wondering if it’s the angular momentum change (conservation of energy) before and after the larger planet alignment that transfers energy to sun to eventually spawn sunspots (via angular momentum exchange to solar barycentric perturbation which manifests “vortice precession” or upwelling disruption on the surface of the sun (sunspot magnetic “crochet” poles.) Would that be the tachocline? I figured that’s what Patrick was referring to with regards to “debunking solar interior theory “ as driver of solar activity when he shared the article on solar magnetic surface structures that arise from torsional strain. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01247.pdf The areas of upwelling on the surface of the sun (tachoclines) seem like they mimics our Hadley weather cells at our equator, no? Our Hadley cells on earth arise from us just spinning differentially (our equator spins faster due to our oblong spheroid shape..) and perturbations make low pressure disturbances (storms) like sunspots vortices. Here is an article correlating the potential energy or distance from the suns barycenter to grand solar minimums. Which would imply the same inverse relationship between large magnetic planetary alignments and sunspot activity on a larger scale. https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/CioncoSoon15-NA-final.pdf Here is another article but they look at heliocentric longitude of planets and their configurations on different sides of the sun they are oriented during solar minimum and max. They are saying when planets are aligned on same side of sun is solar min, but on opposite sides it’s associated with solar maximum. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/409/1/012199/pdf This article talks about how vortices can induce precession on the suns torque which manifests as sunspots. I like how they draw similarities to vortices like our spinning galaxy arms to other smaller solar structures. ” is synergistically caused by a torque-induced precession[w] that transforms the structure of the photosphere with the two-axis spin of its polar vortex pair[uvs]. And then with its torque-free precession[w]resonated on the photosphere, it spawns the plasmatic unisonal vortices at the focal points that manifest as the phenomenon of sunspots. “ https://www.uvs-model.com/WFE on sunspot.htm Sunspots [s] And last here is a critical review of some articles made regarding barycenter and sunspot activity which I found interesting despite the doubt. https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/the-barycentre-strikes-back/ Im no expert on physics so I can’t refute, but I whole heartedly appreciate the in-depth explanations on physical principles and their relationships to each other. I feel like I’m just a bit closer to understanding why or why not planets might have an effect on sunspot activity. Hope everyone else is having fun! Considering my main realization is that planetary alignments inversely affect sunspot activity.. how would that affect predictions? This should be a separate topic: Are you a climate denier? Haha don’t make me go there Im no climate denier, I’m well aware that we have imprinted our climate record as well as our rock record, just look at the ancient life that is now a fossilized sediment (coal, ancient hydrocarbons) we mine and burn into our air. Carbon dating required us to detonate a few nukes first. Dating the earth with uranium decaying into lead required calculating how much lead we polluted all over the world first! Ancient life sediments are lightweight and change lava compositions from heavy to light when subducted to be melted into lighter minerals and take up more volume when extruded and cooled into larger three dimensional crystals we see on continents, making earth ever larger and affecting our spin, and never the same as before, just like ancient lavas. So yeah, if life has affected our rock and atmospheric and oceanic compositions, there is every reason that we humans are as well. If plants can change our atmosphere to oxygenic, we can as well influence its compositions as we are the inverse of plants metabolically. All life also came from rocks and water via this same process (subduction/serpentinization and upwelling of divergent margins mantle plumes mud volcanoes etc, and natural nuclear reactors from the oldest cratons originally deposited on earth) of course humans can change the climate if we came from it! For example check out our newest human deposited rock: anthrapocite! Recently Fossilized plastic bags.. I also think we have a lot to learn about climate in general to address it. biogeochemical cycles requires learning all of those disciplines so it’s a rather multidimensional department anyways and needs many different minds to understand and innovate our dialemma. Hardly no one knows about space weather less than 60 miles from nasa because we don’t see auroras at this latitude! And we just discovered plate techtonics in the 1960’s yet hardly anyone knows where the San Andreas actually is! Lots to know but little reason yet! But really the most important concept of our climate problem is accepting that our system relies on unaddressed inequality.. outsourced labor and environmental problems with manufacturing industrial goods in 3rd world countries. First worlds turning housing into businesses, forcing local workers to commute farther and farther from where we live and work.. overcrowding what’s left and of course.. sending shit to space.. come on..when we have entire countries starving? Yep inequity in distribution of labor will ultimately prevent us from space travel as we are too inefficient and expensive to raise and support to get there. Being advanced enough to fly to the moon but being unable to build our children homes or jobs or farm food will always set is back. i have hope that when we study something that affects the whole globe we might consider it more despite the geographic inequities we face on land. thanks all for sharing, I’m having so much fun learning all this when I’m done with work! heres a link about ESA Gaia’s mission to count and map all the stars in our galaxy, which they’re estimating to be around 1.7 billion.. maybe that’s low for gravitational influences on our sun https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/Gaia_creates_richest_star_map_of_our_Galaxy_and_beyond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher S. Posted June 15, 2022 Share Posted June 15, 2022 Axial precession is the most notable large-scale variance in Earth's relatively short-term climate change. Sunspots are not. The former does what people would like to believe the latter is associated with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts