Jupiter, Sagittarius & the barycenter’s effects on Sunspot Cycle

[Bry]

Along with axial precession and orbital eccentricity.. yeah I’m not quite trying to relate weather (or long term climate) to sunspot activity...yet; but it’s hard not to when talking about solar precession and sunspot generation and it’s similarity to our own axial precession and midlatitide cyclones “vortices”. It’s hard not to relate tachoclines to our Hadley cells!

I think there’s no denying we need to learn more about our current climate and past, to understand human influences in the future.

With specific regards to short term climate influences, I am now under the impression enhanced subduction of water into our mantle when continents are near the equator enhances enough carbon sequestration to bring us into an ice age. Perhaps more so than our earth wobble or changes in orbit. Enhanced rainfall in the tropics weathers exposed mantle (olivine) and locks up carbon dioxide as carbonates!

https://news.mit.edu/2016/ancient-tectonic-activity-was-trigger-for-ice-ages-0418

This implies that the subduction zones in the South Pacific are the powerhouses that keeps the whole world cool enough to have ice caps still on Greenland and Antarctica.

Similar to iron band formations that’s served as an oxygen sink when plants first evolved oxygen, rocks act as breathing, reacting buffers that augment our environment as much as moving closer or father to the sun.

Funny how similar and important convective equatorial cells on the earth (tachoclines on sun), and tectonic subduction are to maintaining and redistributing the net energy and mass balance on these two celestial bodies. It makes sense to me to consider changes in earths climate when looking at solar system dynamics as well as internal influences, as they might all be related.

 

[WildWill]

12 hours ago, Christopher S. said:

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.

I am not so about that… take a look at the little ice age,Younger Dryas, etc. I think,sunspots do affect the climate - on a scale of hundreds to thousands, while Milankovitch Cycles - which operate on three time cycles in the 10’s of thousands of years.

It makes sense to me as when we have sunspots, the energy from the sun, onto earth’s surface increases by about 1.4 W/m^2, which, while it’s a small amount compared to the “average”, over a period of decades without sunspots, I could see how that could contribute to a decrease in temperatures. As in the little ice age. And of course, there is the medieval warm period, on the other end of the spectrum.

Dont get me wrong, I don’t think just because we have a lot of sunspots this cycle, it gonna heat up, I’m talking about multiple cycles - enough to affect the energy balance of the oceans, which tend to cause a delay between action and reaction.

I have also seen some interesting presentations which make the case for solar activity being an important driver of earth’s climate. 
 

Right now, I think the biggest driver is our disruption of the water cycle… not a relatively small increase in a weak greenhouse gas… and ultimately, that will usher in the next ice age! but this isn’t a climate change blog.

WW & ATG

(ATG is my Graduate Assistant Service Dog - Alexander The Great)

 

[Archmonoth]

19 hours ago, Bry said:

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. 

Perhaps similar, the spin rate and changes from the barycenter are at least correlative with changes in the Sun's angular momentum. Planetary alignments are not corelative, and I think change in angular momentum are strongly related to solar activity. 

19 hours ago, Bry said:

  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

I didn't see anything in the article about an inverse relationship, but perhaps I missed it. 

19 hours ago, Bry said:

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

I interrupted this article as the reason for the variety of length in solar cycles is due to planets. For example, Jupiter is in a different place each time a solar cycle begins, by 25 degrees, so if there is an effect, it's not the same place, but perhaps a drag/reduction, or something to do with Jupiter and the Sun sharing angular momentum. Good read, thanks for the link. 

 

19 hours ago, Bry said:

Considering my main realization is that planetary alignments inversely affect sunspot activity.. how would that affect predictions?

Monitor conjunctions during a solar minimum. Are there sunspots with conjunctions/alignments regardless of solar min/max? What if there is a lag, like the conjunctions cause sunspots 11 years from when then occurred? Looking back and correlating them, then predictions sunspots based on conjunctions from 11 years ago? These are just a few ideas for affecting prediction. Good question by the way. 

19 hours ago, Bry said:

This should be a separate topic:

Maybe it should, but for me the science around climate change is many magnitudes higher than solar science. There is so many studies, and tested over the decades, it's not some edge science, it's very robust. 

19 hours ago, Bry said:

I also think we have a lot to learn about climate in general to address it.

This is not true, we know a great deal, and we have known a great deal for decades. It might be new to you, or something you are just learning about. 

19 hours ago, Bry said:

  But really the most important concept of our climate problem is accepting that our system relies on unaddressed inequality..

I agree that inequity is an intersecting issue, as is geo-politics, consumer markets, and technology, among other things. 

19 hours ago, Bry said:

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

The distance is the relevant point of information. If they are far enough away, they can have no effect. 

 

16 hours ago, Christopher S. said:

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.

First of all, welcome back. Secondly, human influence is the primary cause of recent climate change. You might enjoy the recent IPCC report Sixth Assessment Report — IPCC 

 

 

3 hours ago, WildWill said:

Right now, I think the biggest driver is our disruption of the water cycle… not a relatively small increase in a weak greenhouse gas… and ultimately, that will usher in the next ice age! but this isn’t a climate change blog.

 

Perhaps not a blog but ironing out what is considered science or fact is useful for conversation. The average temp is moving up, and has been for decades, directly connected to human activities (urban development, deforestation, pollution). This is a not possibility it's a fact. 

 

Here is a site for monitoring many studies temps and carbon ppm, which you might enjoy looking through: Global CO2 Emissions 

 

Note the lack of correlation with solar cycles, but a correlation with co2?? 

 

 

 

[WildWill]

1 hour ago, Archmonoth said:

 

 

First of all, welcome back. Secondly, human influence is the primary cause of recent climate change. You might enjoy the recent IPCC report Sixth Assessment Report — IPCC 

 

 

Perhaps not a blog but ironing out what is considered science or fact is useful for conversation. The average temp is moving up, and has been for decades, directly connected to human activities (urban development, deforestation, pollution). This is a not possibility it's a fact. 

 

Here is a site for monitoring many studies temps and carbon ppm, which you might enjoy looking through: Global CO2 Emissions 

 

Note the lack of correlation with solar cycles, but a correlation with co2?? 

 

 

 

While this is not the proper forum, the IPCC reports are not scientific, but political statements. Please, define “Global Temperature “ for me, please. lol.  In 1910, the airport weather station was next to the grass runway. No concrete, just gravel in the parking lot. Now, it’s surrounded by hundreds of acres of concrete. 
 

Like the climate of the sun, the earth’s climate is a chaotic, non-linear dynamic system. One characteristic is known as “sensitivity to initial conditions “. Which precludes building an accurate model of the climate system here on the earth or for the sun. The (in)famous hockey stick was a lie. When (after years of trying) we finally got hi to release the code he used, we found out that no matter what data points you put in, you get a hockey stick out. Even if you generate data randomly, like with the Monte Carlo method.

It’s one of those things where “If you keep saying it over and ober, people will believe it!”. It became so rabid that anyone who disagreed couldn’t get published, people in totally unrelated fields needed only to add “and the effects of nan made climate change..” and they would get published. I saw a paper a couple of months ago that blamed climate change for earthquakes!

We know very little about earths climate, we have a great deal to learn. This is not the forum for this argument, but I would be happy to take this discussion offline or to another forum. 
 

I’m just waiting for someone to suggest that man made climate change via CO2 emissions causes increased sunspots. l9l.

Tell me where you’d like to take this argument, I’ll be happy to address it there. But it does not belong here - unless you believe CO2 emissions are causing sunspots…lol.

I may be new to Sun Worship, but climate “science” (read politics) is old hat!

So, can we drop all the climate change stuff not related to the sun’s influence?

I know it’s hard, believe me, I know.

All the Best

Babba O’Riley 

(post doc feline research assistant and comfort support kit-kat)

”The more I learn, the more knowledge I gain, helps me understand just how ignorant I am and how much I don’t know”

”For every question answered, 10 more questions arise…”

-Kealey’91 

Edited June 15, 2022 by WildWill
Fat fingers

[Archmonoth]

2 hours ago, WildWill said:

While this is not the proper forum, the IPCC reports are not scientific, but political statements.

Which is where I think we diverge.

 

"Thousands of scientists and other experts volunteer to review the data and compile key findings into "Assessment Reports" for policymakers and the general public; this has been described as the biggest peer review process in the scientific community." Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia

 

You might not agree with it, but it is scientific, and intersects with political interests (as it should) since climate change involves everyone on the planet. 

2 hours ago, WildWill said:

Please, define “Global Temperature “ for me, please. lol.  In 1910, the airport weather station was next to the grass runway. No concrete, just gravel in the parking lot. Now, it’s surrounded by hundreds of acres of concrete. 

This isn't a study with loose semantics, these are direct causal relationships studied and reported for decades. 

Here is link from NASA describing climate change: What Is Climate Change? | NASA

Here is a link from National Geographic: Climate Change | National Geographic Society

Here is another link from NASA on Global Temperature:  Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

Here is one from NOAA: Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov

 

Even the Wikipedia link has tons of links for information and studies done describing climate change. Thousands of scientists have been saying this for decades, its not me repeating something to be correct. How many studies does it take? How many decades? 

 

2 hours ago, WildWill said:

It’s one of those things where “If you keep saying it over and ober, people will believe it!”. 

It's not just people saying it, its studies and actual science showing it, for decades. 

2 hours ago, WildWill said:

We know very little about earths climate, we have a great deal to learn. This is not the forum for this argument, but I would be happy to take this discussion offline or to another forum. 

If you wish, it's something I will object to whenever I see it, climate denial is a huge issue. 

2 hours ago, WildWill said:

I may be new to Sun Worship, but climate “science” (read politics) is old hat!

So, can we drop all the climate change stuff not related to the sun’s influence?

I know it’s hard, believe me, I know.

Sure, we can get back to sunspots, but what kind of scientific study would you accept? Something from NOAA or NASA? Or are those too political of an organization to trust their science? 

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by Archmonoth

[Bry]

22 hours ago, Bry said:

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

 

3 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

didn't see anything in the article about an inverse relationship, but perhaps I missed it. 

I guess I read the abstract as saying that when the sun is closer to the barycenter and larger planets are aligned on one side of sun (and stores the most variation but lowest amount in potential energy), this is associated with grand solar minimums. Inverse meaning planets lining up is associated with lower solar activity if you follow.. I see how you (anarchmonoth) mentioned that the planets aligning might be associated with storing energy for 6 years until the solar maximum, but they are saying the opposite. Planetary alignments are associated with less potential energy storage total but more variation... not sure how more potential energy variation transfers more energy via angular momentum.

 

climate stuff - I can’t help myself!

I think showing a temperature graph of the earth that only goes back to the 1890s doesn’t show the larger timelines that we need to think in to understand larger climate cycles. Im sharing this graph that only goes back to when the Cambrian to show how for most of earths history, temperatures were hotter than they are today. This graph also shows Milankovitch cycles.

Source: 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

They also mention the role of continental collisions at the equator locking up carbon dioxide so I think geologic cycles are gaining traction in understanding long term climate cycles.

Here is an excerpt:

“ In our current, mostly ice-free world, the natural weathering of silicate rock by rainfall consumes carbon dioxide over geologic time scales. During the frigid conditions of the Neoproterozoic, rainfall became rare. With volcanoes churning out carbon dioxide and little or no rainfall to weather rocks and consume the greenhouse gas, temperatures climbed.

What evidence do scientists have that all this actually happened some 700 million years ago? Some of the best evidence is "cap carbonates" lying directly over Neoproterozoic-age glacial deposits. Cap carbonates—layers of calcium-rich rock such as limestone—only form in warm water.“

Here is the actual pdf from the mit researchers who found an association between continents at the equator to be associated with higher rates of precipitation weathering magic rocks to store carbon dioxide into carbonates. I’m posting this so y’all can compare their easy to read graphs with these longer term graphs above.

https://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/macdonald2019.pdf

Here is another graph showing the significance in how quickly we humans have reversed our latest cooling trend despite the fact that we are supposed to be in an interglacial period.

So when I say we have a lot more to learn about climate to address it, I mean with regards to understanding these longer term trends. I took some courses to understand climate change and quickly realized climate scientists were not worried and thought in much longer time scales! Very much the opposite of how I thought a concerned body of scientists would react. I also found out that I would need a background in atmospheric, biogeochemical cycles, geology, chemistry, and earth sciences to understand influences on our climate long term. So classes had students from all those departments to collaborate and teach each other as there was no way to learn everything necessary. Collaboration is the only way.

And considering we didn’t “discover” plate tectonics until 1960’s and “global warming” until the 1970’s.. I think we have quite a bit still to learn about our complicated interconnected climate since it’s only been 60 years of actual temperature data taken intentionally for that purpose. Kinda like space weather...

There is no denying that humans have caused a seriously significant temperature shift within our short time here, even when zooming out to a larger time scale! It is still important and maybe confusing to climate deniers looking at how warm the earth has been for most of its existence.

If plants can change the atmosphere from anoxic to oxygenic by respirating, it makes sense humans can make an oxygenic climate higher in carbon dioxide and water by respirating as well as we have inverse metabolisms.

However.. I did find out recently that humans can evolve oxygen via melanin! Too cool gotta share again:

https://medcraveonline.com/MOJCSR/the-unsuspected-capacity-of-melanin-to-transform-light-energy-into-chemical-energy-and-the-surprising-anoxia-tolerance-of-chrysemys-pictanbsp.html

Most people don’t know that the number one greenhouse gas is water vapor, not just carbon dioxide and methane. Hence why it makes sense that our “water cycle is speeding up”.

We have more to learn about our climate and composition of our atmosphere if we intend to change it. Especially for switching to “renewable” energy sources. Switching from gasoline to hydrogen gas would require understanding how hydrogens escape velocity would result in a mass loss of hydrogen to space and interaction with ozone. We make ozone on earths surface when we drive next to plants and make photochemical smog instead of it being only in stratosphere.

I appreciate there is more concern for discussing our climate than the original topic. I have loads to say on this topic! It does seem to share some mechanisms and timelines with our solar system. I agree that looking at a studies source or intent is important to understanding any scientists inherent  bias.

Although catalytic converters were meant to clean up the air from combustible engines, they convert carbon monoxide (that should kill us in traffic locally), into carbon dioxide (which will kill us all globally later). Which enables us to keep driving in gridlock traffic instead of asphyxiating in it.

Thanks all for a very lively discourse!

. 

  

 

6 hours ago, WildWill said:

I have also seen some interesting presentations which make the case for solar activity being an important driver of earth’s climate. 

I’d love to see these presentations!

I remember reading in John Steinbeck’s East of Eden where he mentions a cyclical shift in ocean temperatures that affect sardine or anchovy population booms as our first mention of the El Niño/la nina oscillation.. and potentially relating that to our solar cycle.

Here’s an review of an article I found after reading what Steinbeck wrote that discusses El Niño/la Nina decadal oscillations and the solar cycle. This is also where I first heard about “terminator events” being significant time markers in the solar cycle.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210405075853.htm

Heres an excerpt from review:

“The paper does not delve into what physical connection between the Sun and Earth could be responsible for the correlation, but the authors note that there are several possibilities that warrant further study, including the influence of the Sun's magnetic field on the amount of cosmic rays that escape into the solar system and ultimately bombard Earth. However, a robust physical link between cosmic rays variations and climate has yet to be determined.”

I’d love to know more about this! Seems related to my original question as well regarding planets aligning towards cosmic radiation source during solar minimums. And now that the “terminator event” has come to pass, I’d love to know why the switch from la nino to El Niño has not come to pass yet it seems!

 

[WildWill]

lol. Archmonoth, Bry,  This is not the proper forum, but thank you for the dissertations! How about creating a topic on why the sun doesn’t affect the earth’s climate, which is primarily driven by man made CO2 emissions? Or something like that… 

There are also plenty of Climate Change web sites with forums such as this - but for climate change! 

please, can we get back onto the topic - I find the topic at hand to be quite fascinating.

Edited June 16, 2022 by WildWill
y

[Archmonoth]

6 hours ago, Bry said:

I guess I read the abstract as saying that when the sun is closer to the barycenter and larger planets are aligned on one side of sun (and stores the most variation but lowest amount in potential energy), this is associated with grand solar minimums. Inverse meaning planets lining up is associated with lower solar activity if you follow.. I see how you (anarchmonoth) mentioned that the planets aligning might be associated with storing energy for 6 years until the solar maximum, but they are saying the opposite. Planetary alignments are associated with less potential energy storage total but more variation... not sure how more potential energy variation transfers more energy via angular momentum.

This makes sense, but I'm not sure how testable it. There are many conjunctions/alignments during solar min and max, unless there is a direct causal relationship which can be measured, wouldn't it remain correlative? I guess I'm stuck on the "how" and don't see how a test or method for confirming the idea would look like. 

6 hours ago, Bry said:

There is no denying that humans have caused a seriously significant temperature shift within our short time here, even when zooming out to a larger time scale! It is still important and maybe confusing to climate deniers looking at how warm the earth has been for most of its existence.

The fact that humans caused the current climate shift is all I am asserting with Will, which isn't something you have any issues with. I can see how long term/view of temperature can be confusing for deniers. 

6 hours ago, Bry said:

I appreciate there is more concern for discussing our climate than the original topic. I have loads to say on this topic! It does seem to share some mechanisms and timelines with our solar system. I agree that looking at a studies source or intent is important to understanding any scientists inherent  bias.

If climate change is dismissed as "political" I will object, but I haven't argued specifics, just the defensive attitude Will has. To me denying climate change is akin to saying the world is flat, or that the moon landing was a hoax. (to me). I agree scientists can and do have bias, but there have been so many studies done on climate change, and such an abundance of contemporary information. 

6 hours ago, Bry said:

Thanks all for a very lively discourse!

I appreciate your attitude. 

6 hours ago, Bry said:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210405075853.htm

Heres an excerpt from review:

“The paper does not delve into what physical connection between the Sun and Earth could be responsible for the correlation, but the authors note that there are several possibilities that warrant further study, including the influence of the Sun's magnetic field on the amount of cosmic rays that escape into the solar system and ultimately bombard Earth. However, a robust physical link between cosmic rays variations and climate has yet to be determined.”

I’d love to know more about this! Seems related to my original question as well regarding planets aligning towards cosmic radiation source during solar minimums. And now that the “terminator event” has come to pass, I’d love to know why the switch from la nino to El Niño has not come to pass yet it seems!

 

Well lets start with some terms, like what is considered an "alignment"? 

For starters, planets are a variable distance from each other, with variable mass. The loose definition of alignment is +/- 5 degrees, I think. However, I have argued that such a variance in degrees can be off by thousands of kilometers. For example, an alignment with Pluto could be off by 3 degrees and be hundreds of thousands of kilometers off from forming any kind of straight line, or line up with another planet.

 

Secondly, let's try and find a method for something being incorrect, and separate speculation. There seems to be some ideas on what planets might do, so let's start with what we know about what planets don't affect.  We know they don't cause sunspots or flares when in alignments, at least directly in real-time. We know their magnetic fields (those with magnetic fields) don't reach to the Sun, and we know their fields don't reach each other, even when in alignment due to the distances. What else don't planets do? If we can eliminate some speculation, perhaps we can head in a testable direction. 

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Archmonoth

[WildWill]

For the record, I do not deny that humans have had a significant impact on the earth and its climate. I just don’t think it’s all about CO2.

How about we focus on possible climate impacts before the Industrial Age?

im very happy that we,are moving forward! I still want to look at the extent of the sun’s magnetic field, it’s direction and strength and how it might be affected by “interstellar winds” and its relationship with the center is f the galaxy… 

We still have that interesting correlation between Jupiter and the rotation around the barycenter… I’m not quite ready to dismiss it yet…

BTW: I respect your right to your opinions, regardless of whether I agree or not. As I hope we can respect mine and let’s just agree to disagree and leave it behind!

Ain't that sun purdy today?

L, A & O

16 hours ago, Bry said:

 

I guess I read the abstract as saying that when the sun is closer to the barycenter and larger planets are aligned on one side of sun (and stores the most variation but lowest amount in potential energy), this is associated with grand solar minimums. Inverse meaning planets lining up is associated with lower solar activity if you follow.. I see how you (anarchmonoth) mentioned that the planets aligning might be associated with storing energy for 6 years until the solar maximum, but they are saying the opposite. Planetary alignments are associated with less potential energy storage total but more variation... not sure how more potential energy variation transfers more energy via angular momentum.

 

climate stuff - I can’t help myself!

I think showing a temperature graph of the earth that only goes back to the 1890s doesn’t show the larger timelines that we need to think in to understand larger climate cycles. Im sharing this graph that only goes back to when the Cambrian to show how for most of earths history, temperatures were hotter than they are today. This graph also shows Milankovitch cycles.

Source: 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

They also mention the role of continental collisions at the equator locking up carbon dioxide so I think geologic cycles are gaining traction in understanding long term climate cycles.

Here is an excerpt:

“ In our current, mostly ice-free world, the natural weathering of silicate rock by rainfall consumes carbon dioxide over geologic time scales. During the frigid conditions of the Neoproterozoic, rainfall became rare. With volcanoes churning out carbon dioxide and little or no rainfall to weather rocks and consume the greenhouse gas, temperatures climbed.

What evidence do scientists have that all this actually happened some 700 million years ago? Some of the best evidence is "cap carbonates" lying directly over Neoproterozoic-age glacial deposits. Cap carbonates—layers of calcium-rich rock such as limestone—only form in warm water.“

Here is the actual pdf from the mit researchers who found an association between continents at the equator to be associated with higher rates of precipitation weathering magic rocks to store carbon dioxide into carbonates. I’m posting this so y’all can compare their easy to read graphs with these longer term graphs above.

https://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/macdonald2019.pdf

Here is another graph showing the significance in how quickly we humans have reversed our latest cooling trend despite the fact that we are supposed to be in an interglacial period.

So when I say we have a lot more to learn about climate to address it, I mean with regards to understanding these longer term trends. I took some courses to understand climate change and quickly realized climate scientists were not worried and thought in much longer time scales! Very much the opposite of how I thought a concerned body of scientists would react. I also found out that I would need a background in atmospheric, biogeochemical cycles, geology, chemistry, and earth sciences to understand influences on our climate long term. So classes had students from all those departments to collaborate and teach each other as there was no way to learn everything necessary. Collaboration is the only way.

And considering we didn’t “discover” plate tectonics until 1960’s and “global warming” until the 1970’s.. I think we have quite a bit still to learn about our complicated interconnected climate since it’s only been 60 years of actual temperature data taken intentionally for that purpose. Kinda like space weather...

There is no denying that humans have caused a seriously significant temperature shift within our short time here, even when zooming out to a larger time scale! It is still important and maybe confusing to climate deniers looking at how warm the earth has been for most of its existence.

If plants can change the atmosphere from anoxic to oxygenic by respirating, it makes sense humans can make an oxygenic climate higher in carbon dioxide and water by respirating as well as we have inverse metabolisms.

However.. I did find out recently that humans can evolve oxygen via melanin! Too cool gotta share again:

https://medcraveonline.com/MOJCSR/the-unsuspected-capacity-of-melanin-to-transform-light-energy-into-chemical-energy-and-the-surprising-anoxia-tolerance-of-chrysemys-pictanbsp.html

Most people don’t know that the number one greenhouse gas is water vapor, not just carbon dioxide and methane. Hence why it makes sense that our “water cycle is speeding up”.

We have more to learn about our climate and composition of our atmosphere if we intend to change it. Especially for switching to “renewable” energy sources. Switching from gasoline to hydrogen gas would require understanding how hydrogens escape velocity would result in a mass loss of hydrogen to space and interaction with ozone. We make ozone on earths surface when we drive next to plants and make photochemical smog instead of it being only in stratosphere.

I appreciate there is more concern for discussing our climate than the original topic. I have loads to say on this topic! It does seem to share some mechanisms and timelines with our solar system. I agree that looking at a studies source or intent is important to understanding any scientists inherent  bias.

Although catalytic converters were meant to clean up the air from combustible engines, they convert carbon monoxide (that should kill us in traffic locally), into carbon dioxide (which will kill us all globally later). Which enables us to keep driving in gridlock traffic instead of asphyxiating in it.

Thanks all for a very lively discourse!

. 

  

 

I’d love to see these presentations!

I remember reading in John Steinbeck’s East of Eden where he mentions a cyclical shift in ocean temperatures that affect sardine or anchovy population booms as our first mention of the El Niño/la nina oscillation.. and potentially relating that to our solar cycle.

Here’s an review of an article I found after reading what Steinbeck wrote that discusses El Niño/la Nina decadal oscillations and the solar cycle. This is also where I first heard about “terminator events” being significant time markers in the solar cycle.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210405075853.htm

Heres an excerpt from review:

“The paper does not delve into what physical connection between the Sun and Earth could be responsible for the correlation, but the authors note that there are several possibilities that warrant further study, including the influence of the Sun's magnetic field on the amount of cosmic rays that escape into the solar system and ultimately bombard Earth. However, a robust physical link between cosmic rays variations and climate has yet to be determined.”

I’d love to know more about this! Seems related to my original question as well regarding planets aligning towards cosmic radiation source during solar minimums. And now that the “terminator event” has come to pass, I’d love to know why the switch from la nino to El Niño has not come to pass yet it seems!

 

Send me a private message with your email address and I’ll send you a copy of the last one I saw - February of this year I think…

I would like to further explore the cosmic ray thing as well!!! I hadn’t really given much thought to cosmic rays and their effects.

Cheers!

Alexander The Great!

The last couple of days ive been thinking about gravity and its effects at different scales as well as tidal effects on the different layers of the sun.  In the atmosphere, there are certainly forces acting on all that plasma due to the rotational differences between the equator and the poles, coupled with plasma flows induced by the  Coriolis Effect. Someone mentioned Hadley Cells - like here on earth. I agree completely. 
 

in my imagination, I’ve tried to visualize these flows on the sun. It seems to me that the rotational differential has the effect of “pushing” plasma toward the poles. This imbalance coupled with the Coriolis Effect should create some structure like Hadley cells here on earth. We can see sheering due to the differing rotation rates via the HMI Magnetograms. 
Check out that region just ahead of 3029, it came into view with the green “behind” the yellow and as it moved, we saw the sheering effects as the yellow migrated toward the S Pole and the green has migrated to be “above” the yellow region. From my observations, it appears to me that this sheering affect is a major driver in tearing sunspots apart as well as creating magnetic areas which induce the formation of sunspots. 
 

Ive also been wondering if the filaments we can see in the chromosphere and transition zone are return flows of plasma due to the differential rates pushing it toward the poles as well as tidal forces we don’t yet understand….

Cheers.

LK

[Newbie]

On 5/25/2022 at 9:59 AM, Newbie said:

There is a new research paper that has been put forward but not as yet published.

It proposes that a cold interstellar gas cloud compressed the heliosphere (the extent of influence of the solar wind) closer in to the Sun than the orbit of the Earth. It was estimated to have occurred ~ two million years ago. The paper goes on to discuss changes on the Earth that resulted. 

Whilst I dont necessarily agree with their conclusions, it reaffirms to me the role that the heliosphere plays in pushing against interstellar space, protecting the solar system from a huge number of intergalactic cosmic rays which would present serious consequences for life here on Earth.

The Sun certainly does protect the Earth, and the rest of the solar system via the heliosphere. 

Bry: Just for context I wrote this in another thread but it highlights how it is possible for the interstellar medium to impact the solar system by pushing against and compressing the heliosphere. The solar wind flows from the Sun in all directions. The shape of the inner helioshpere has been likened to that of an asymmetrical ballerina's skirt, due mostly to the nature of the Sun's rotational movement.

Unfortunately  I can't add your quote until I post and edit.         

On 6/15/2022 at 10:39 AM, Bry said:

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

You're welcome Bry. It is hard to visualise the shrinkage and expansion of the heliosphere because 2D representations are not necessarily accurate but at least we glean some understanding of what is taking place. In terms of where cosmic rays emanate from, your guess is as good as mine. I would have thought they were coming at us from all directions.

N.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Newbie

[Bry]

I finally made an excel sheet of all the forces of the planets on the sun and galactic core on the solar system. Mostly for myself and reviewing accepted masses and distances again to understand force better... but I can't attach it due to its file type! Any ideas how to convert to share here? I'd sure appreciate being able to share to have others check over my numbers and comparisons for accuracy purposes.

I wrote up my quick analysis at the bottom of this post, but without the spreadsheet for reference, its hard to discuss.

Its looking like the planets account for most of the force on the sun, but half of the planets have less force than the galaxy on sun!

Seems like the galaxy accounts for more influence on the sun's barycenter than I thought..

I first wanted to respond to all the helpful comments because it helps me follow ideas, learn, and track conversations and the people who ask them.

Really appreciate all the input!

 

2 hours ago, Newbie said:

"There is a new research paper that has been put forward but not as yet published.

It proposes that a cold interstellar gas cloud compressed the heliosphere (the extent of influence of the solar wind) closer in to the Sun than the orbit of the Earth. It was estimated to have occurred ~ two million years ago. The paper goes on to discuss changes on the Earth that resulted. " - newbie

 

Thanks again! I'd love to see any more info on the shape or size of our heliosphere. I don't know where to find your old post for the link, but I found an webpage today that discusses the heliosphere radius being closer to the sun than I thought too, r = 90 AU or 180 diameter.

I included some of these heliosphere distances and links on my excel sheet that I can't attach. Would love to have your input on heliosphere distance!

2 hours ago, Newbie said:

The solar wind flows from the Sun in all directions. The shape of the inner helioshpere has been likened to that of an asymmetrical ballerina's skirt, due mostly to the Sun's rotational movement.

Is the inner heliosphere the same ballerina skirt that is our Co-rotating interaction region (CIR) spills out of?

2 hours ago, Newbie said:

In terms of where cosmic rays emanate from, your guess is as good as mine. I would have thought they were coming at us from all directions.

I thought so too but I've heard our galaxy is a point source of cosmic radiation. I posted these wiki quotes awhile back, back when I remember wondering what direction the heliosphere faces (like our earths magnetosphere faces the sun) and found on the heliosphere wiki page that the majority of cosmic radiation has been detected near the constellation scorpius. They also mention it shaped like coma with a "windward" side indicating a direction may just in the way that our solar system is rotating in the galaxy. The assumption is that most of the cosmic rays locally come from our galactic core, and apparent oncoming intersteller winds from our solar system rotating. That makes me assume the net force of direction of cosmic radiation would shift from sagittarius (galactic core) towards Scorpius with oncoming interstellar headwinds as we rotate. Let me know what you think!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere

"The flow of the interstellar medium (ISM) into the heliosphere has been measured by at least 11 different spacecraft as of 2013.^[59] By 2013, it was suspected that the direction of the flow had changed over time.^[59] The flow, coming from Earth's perspective from the constellation Scorpius, has probably changed direction by several degrees since the 1970s."^[59]"

"A proposed model hypothesizes that the heliosheath is shaped like the coma of a comet, and trails several times that distance in the direction opposite to the Sun's path through space. At its windward side, its thickness is estimated to be between 10 and 100 AU.^[41]"

  

On 6/11/2022 at 9:48 PM, Archmonoth said:

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. 

What if the accepted mass of the galactic changed from 400 billion to 2 trillion?

On 6/11/2022 at 6:52 PM, Archmonoth said:

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

On 6/15/2022 at 10:42 PM, Archmonoth said:

This makes sense, but I'm not sure how testable it. There are many conjunctions/alignments during solar min and max, unless there is a direct causal relationship which can be measured, wouldn't it remain correlative? I guess I'm stuck on the "how" and don't see how a test or method for confirming the idea would look like.

On 6/15/2022 at 10:42 PM, Archmonoth said:

Well lets start with some terms, like what is considered an "alignment"? 

For starters, planets are a variable distance from each other, with variable mass. The loose definition of alignment is +/- 5 degrees

I am now realizing this whole time I meant the inverse! I see how confusing it is otherwise!

Large planets aligning on the same side of the sun (closest to cosmic radiation source) is associated solar min and less sunspot activity.

Larger planets lining up opposite the sun (farthest from cosmic radiation source) are associated with more sunspot activity and solar max.

Thats the test! +/-5degrees sounds like a start but the alignments mostly needs to run through  the sun to influence it. Not just any planet alignment, although Patrick seems to think differently.

 

On 6/11/2022 at 12:08 PM, 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…" - WildWill

 

I made an excel spreadsheet (cant attach to this post) to get all these numbers straight for force calculations.  I used 2 trillion solar masses as the new galactic mass from links below even though you proposed 400 billion stars in our galaxy last.. It would be awesome to have a second opinion on these figures and have units checked and such on the excel sheet as they get confusing. Too bad I can't share spreadsheets here. No dissertations here!

Still seems like the galaxy's pull on the solar system is less than 2% of the planets pull on the sun summed up... but it still seems like a significant number. When comparing individual F (planets) to F (galaxy on solar system) I found that the F(galaxy) was greater than half of the planets effect on the sun! Just want too make sure that makes any sense even with a larger mass for our galaxy.

https://www.universetoday.com/15585/diameter-of-the-solar-system/

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/Gaia_creates_richest_star_map_of_our_Galaxy_and_beyond

 

15 hours ago, WildWill said:

The last couple of days ive been thinking about gravity and its effects at different scales as well as tidal effects on the different layers of the sun.  In the atmosphere, there are certainly forces acting on all that plasma due to the rotational differences between the equator and the poles, coupled with plasma flows induced by the  Coriolis Effect. Someone mentioned Hadley Cells - like here on earth. I agree completely.

Thats why I loved that we spent a minute talking about influences on our climate... totally worth it. So many similarities with rotation causing coriolis effects which convection cells and precession vortices making midlatitude disturbances like our ferrel cells and associated unstable midlatitude cyclones! Makes sense too, the energy has to go somewhere.

On 6/15/2022 at 10:42 PM, Archmonoth said:

Secondly, let's try and find a method for something being incorrect, and separate speculation. There seems to be some ideas on what planets might do, so let's start with what we know about what planets don't affect.  We know they don't cause sunspots or flares when in alignments, at least directly in real-time. We know their magnetic fields (those with magnetic fields) don't reach to the Sun, and we know their fields don't reach each other, even when in alignment due to the distances. What else don't planets do? If we can eliminate some speculation, perhaps we can head in a testable direction. 

I see your point and I thought I'd go back to the beginning.

I made an excel sheet to just start with calculating F and gravity acceleration again for planets and galaxy since it seems like the masses for the galaxy are not widely agreed upon.. or unclear to me. I picked 2 trillion as a high end to account for the ort cloud and other nebula fluff around the edges of galaxy. I would love to have folks look over my numbers, calculations, and analysis on my shared excel document but alas.. I can't attach that file type..

 

I found the galactic core makes up 1.66% of the total F of solar system and galaxy. Which still seems significant to me, although I'm not sure what percent or number would indicate no longer having an effect on our sun or solar activity.

The planets make up 99.33% of the total force between the solar system and galaxy.

But when comparing the individual forces of each planet on the sun, as a percent of the ratio of the force of galaxy on solar system to each planets force on the sun..

I found the force between galaxy and solar system to be more than half of the planets force on our sun! I'd appreciate a double check on that because otherwise it would imply the galaxy has more effect on our solar system's barycenter than half of the planets.

F(galactic core - solar system) > F(planets - sun) Mars, Mercury, Neptune, Uranus, Pluto.

I also noticed that the speed of the planets is independent of their force. Meaning, the fastest planets are not the same as the ones with the most force.

Ranking in terms of %Ftotal

Jupiter (strongest)

Earth

Venus

Mercury

Mars

uranus

neptune

pluto (lowest)   Ranking of speed of planets Jupiter (fastest) Neptune Saturn Earth Venus = Uranus Mars Mercury Pluto (slowest)   I have more I want to compare, like differences in force for when Jupiter is at parahelion vs aphelion.

Would love to discuss more on testable methods and mechanisms but its late, and gravity beckons..

Thanks everyone!

 

 

[WildWill]

3 hours ago, Bry said:

I finally made an excel sheet of all the forces of the planets on the sun and galactic core on the solar system. Mostly for myself and reviewing accepted masses and distances again to understand force better... but I can't attach it due to its file type! Any ideas how to convert to share here? I'd sure appreciate being able to share to have others check over my numbers and comparisons for accuracy purposes.

I wrote up my quick analysis at the bottom of this post, but without the spreadsheet for reference, its hard to discuss.

Its looking like the planets account for most of the force on the sun, but half of the planets have less force than the galaxy on sun!

Seems like the galaxy accounts for more influence on the sun's barycenter than I thought..

I first wanted to respond to all the helpful comments because it helps me follow ideas, learn, and track conversations and the people who ask them.

Really appreciate all the input!

 

"There is a new research paper that has been put forward but not as yet published.

It proposes that a cold interstellar gas cloud compressed the heliosphere (the extent of influence of the solar wind) closer in to the Sun than the orbit of the Earth. It was estimated to have occurred ~ two million years ago. The paper goes on to discuss changes on the Earth that resulted. " - newbie

 

Thanks again! I'd love to see any more info on the shape or size of our heliosphere. I don't know where to find your old post for the link, but I found an webpage today that discusses the heliosphere radius being closer to the sun than I thought too, r = 90 AU or 180 diameter.

I included some of these heliosphere distances and links on my excel sheet that I can't attach. Would love to have your input on heliosphere distance!

Is the inner heliosphere the same ballerina skirt that is our Co-rotating interaction region (CIR) spills out of?

I thought so too but I've heard our galaxy is a point source of cosmic radiation. I posted these wiki quotes awhile back, back when I remember wondering what direction the heliosphere faces (like our earths magnetosphere faces the sun) and found on the heliosphere wiki page that the majority of cosmic radiation has been detected near the constellation scorpius. They also mention it shaped like coma with a "windward" side indicating a direction may just in the way that our solar system is rotating in the galaxy. The assumption is that most of the cosmic rays locally come from our galactic core, and apparent oncoming intersteller winds from our solar system rotating. That makes me assume the net force of direction of cosmic radiation would shift from sagittarius (galactic core) towards Scorpius with oncoming interstellar headwinds as we rotate. Let me know what you think!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere

"The flow of the interstellar medium (ISM) into the heliosphere has been measured by at least 11 different spacecraft as of 2013.^[59] By 2013, it was suspected that the direction of the flow had changed over time.^[59] The flow, coming from Earth's perspective from the constellation Scorpius, has probably changed direction by several degrees since the 1970s."^[59]"

"A proposed model hypothesizes that the heliosheath is shaped like the coma of a comet, and trails several times that distance in the direction opposite to the Sun's path through space. At its windward side, its thickness is estimated to be between 10 and 100 AU.^[41]"

  

What if the accepted mass of the galactic changed from 400 billion to 2 trillion?

I am now realizing this whole time I meant the inverse! I see how confusing it is otherwise!

Large planets aligning on the same side of the sun (closest to cosmic radiation source) is associated solar min and less sunspot activity.

Larger planets lining up opposite the sun (farthest from cosmic radiation source) are associated with more sunspot activity and solar max.

Thats the test! +/-5degrees sounds like a start but the alignments mostly needs to run through  the sun to influence it. Not just any planet alignment, although Patrick seems to think differently.

 

"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…" - WildWill

 

I made an excel spreadsheet (cant attach to this post) to get all these numbers straight for force calculations.  I used 2 trillion solar masses as the new galactic mass from links below even though you proposed 400 billion stars in our galaxy last.. It would be awesome to have a second opinion on these figures and have units checked and such on the excel sheet as they get confusing. Too bad I can't share spreadsheets here. No dissertations here!

Still seems like the galaxy's pull on the solar system is less than 2% of the planets pull on the sun summed up... but it still seems like a significant number. When comparing individual F (planets) to F (galaxy on solar system) I found that the F(galaxy) was greater than half of the planets effect on the sun! Just want too make sure that makes any sense even with a larger mass for our galaxy.

https://www.universetoday.com/15585/diameter-of-the-solar-system/

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/Gaia_creates_richest_star_map_of_our_Galaxy_and_beyond

 

Thats why I loved that we spent a minute talking about influences on our climate... totally worth it. So many similarities with rotation causing coriolis effects which convection cells and precession vortices making midlatitude disturbances like our ferrel cells and associated unstable midlatitude cyclones! Makes sense too, the energy has to go somewhere.

I see your point and I thought I'd go back to the beginning.

I made an excel sheet to just start with calculating F and gravity acceleration again for planets and galaxy since it seems like the masses for the galaxy are not widely agreed upon.. or unclear to me. I picked 2 trillion as a high end to account for the ort cloud and other nebula fluff around the edges of galaxy. I would love to have folks look over my numbers, calculations, and analysis on my shared excel document but alas.. I can't attach that file type..

 

I found the galactic core makes up 1.66% of the total F of solar system and galaxy. Which still seems significant to me, although I'm not sure what percent or number would indicate no longer having an effect on our sun or solar activity.

The planets make up 99.33% of the total force between the solar system and galaxy.

But when comparing the individual forces of each planet on the sun, as a percent of the ratio of the force of galaxy on solar system to each planets force on the sun..

I found the force between galaxy and solar system to be more than half of the planets force on our sun! I'd appreciate a double check on that because otherwise it would imply the galaxy has more effect on our solar system's barycenter than half of the planets.

F(galactic core - solar system) > F(planets - sun) Mars, Mercury, Neptune, Uranus, Pluto.

I also noticed that the speed of the planets is independent of their force. Meaning, the fastest planets are not the same as the ones with the most force.

Ranking in terms of %Ftotal

Jupiter (strongest)

Earth

Venus

Mercury

Mars

uranus

neptune

pluto (lowest)   Ranking of speed of planets Jupiter (fastest) Neptune Saturn Earth Venus = Uranus Mars Mercury Pluto (slowest)   I have more I want to compare, like differences in force for when Jupiter is at parahelion vs aphelion.

Would love to discuss more on testable methods and mechanisms but its late, and gravity beckons..

Thanks everyone!

 

 

Hi Bry,

 

I like your approach - looking at the forces and orbit of the barycenter of the solar system as compared to the galactic core. 
 

The orbital velocity of the planets around the sun is (almost) independent from their masses. The orbital velocity is really only depended upon the distance from the sun and the mass of the sun - for circular orbits. For e != 1 (e - eccentricity) the orbital velocity is constant. 

For e != 0, it’s a little more complicated. Kepler’s second law states that planets sweep out equal areas (area defined by a line from the planet to the focus point of the orbit where the sun is located (barycenter) in equal time. In an elliptical orbit, the orbiting body will move faster in its orbit At perigee and slower at apogee. 
 

Thus, the orbital velocity of the planets is in the same order as their distance to the sun. For Pluto, which has a very eccentric orbit, it moves faster than Neptune when it’s inside its (Neptune’s) orbit and slower than Neptune when outside Neptune’s orbit.  The following link will show the orbital velocity for all of the planets. Keep in mind that it can vary a little from these velocities as all real orbits have eccentricity not equal to 1. Kepler’s first law states that all the orbits are elliptical with the sun at one of the focii.

https://planetfacts.org/orbital-speed-of-planets-in-order/

I haven’t done the calculations on force from each planet. But I noticed Saturn is not included in the list… late night?? 😏 lol. I understand completely!

I also found the link to Gaia as well! Very cool. They are currently releasing their second dataset, with distance and velocity of over 1.5 billion stars (billion, with a B!) as well as an asteroid survey in our solar system. It looks very impressive. 

ive been working on my iPad as I’ve been moving my office downstairs and I haven’t got my computers set up yet. So, working with images and spreadsheets, equations/math is much more difficult and limited… Imma gonna try and get it into workable shape today - but the face of the sun is calling me!

WW
 

[Archmonoth]

On 6/16/2022 at 8:43 AM, WildWill said:

For the record, I do not deny that humans have had a significant impact on the earth and its climate. I just don’t think it’s all about CO2.

How about we focus on possible climate impacts before the Industrial Age?

To me this is like discussing the mortality rate of a war by looking at mortality rates before a war. There is an event, a current event which is from the pollution and byproduct of industry and human activities which are affecting our environment and our world. We have tested this, and by "we" I mean thousands of scientists and studies and peer reviewed processes. If a peer reviewed process shows that solar activity or human activity causes earthquakes, temperature increases, whatever, it can be tested, which means there is now new information. C02 and methane and sulfur and such have direct testable effects, those tests are repeatable, not conjecture. You can think whatever you want, and if you pardon my spite about this, it's because deniers put an incredible burden on speculation while ignoring the science.

 

11 hours ago, Bry said:

Its looking like the planets account for most of the force on the sun, but half of the planets have less force than the galaxy on sun!

Seems like the galaxy accounts for more influence on the sun's barycenter than I thought..

I have posted this before, but the barycenter influences have already been modeled: Microsoft Word - solarsystem_barycenter.doc (wmich.edu) 

Also see the last link in this post for all the calculations of the influence of the planets. 

 

11 hours ago, Bry said:

What if the accepted mass of the galactic changed from 400 billion to 2 trillion?

Again, depends on the distance from mass sources. The initial 8k parsecs from the center of the galaxy with a mass of 4 million solar masses, produces a gravitational pull, but doesn't cause acceleration or changes in momentum, i.e., the force is constant. (At least in the solar cycles)

 

Much of the galaxy is further than 8k parsecs and has even less mass. The galactic core has some effect, since we do rotate around it, but it isn't causing acceleration or changes in angular momentum of the Sun. 

 

1706.01854.pdf (arxiv.org)

 

To me this seems like a good direction to pursue, since there is a strong connection to the changes in the Sun's momentum and solar activity. Conjunctions of planets don't cause this, the galactic core doesn't cause this, but the barycenter, or rather the shape of the barycenter does cause this. 

 

If the barycenter is shaped by a multitude of planets/objects (including the galactic core) then predicting the barycenter could predict sunspots. 

 

Where is the barycenter going next, Ie. what route is the Sun headed on? The current barycenter is outside the Sun's radius, and was inside the Sun's radius in 2017-2005 (11ish years). Momentum is being conserved (transferred) into turbulence in the convection zone of the sun, and waves/bubbles of plasma, magnetic flux, all sorts of perturbations are coming to the surface. 

 

The Sun is perturbed from the barycenter being outside its radius, and like a passenger in a car (the car being the entire solar/system/galaxy) smashed up against the car door as it goes around the corner. The current route appears to be slighter shorter than the 1993-2005 route, which was the last time the barycenter was outside the Sun's radius. 

 

Here is a link with all the force calculations and a current barycenter route, I think this will answer many of your force questions.: Gravity, rosettes and inertia (blackholeformulas.com)

(Seriously, it has all the force calculations and inertia contributions from planets.)

Point 4 describes the waves which are caused by the perturbation of momentum being conserved  

From the link:

 

"There is a different barycenter and wobble in the Sun for each planet. Galaxies wobble. The universe wobbles. The Sun orbits about all of its different centers of mass of all the planets simultaneously. This is a complex pattern of movement. Only the Sun-Jupiter barycenter is outside the surface of the Sun. The Sun makes offset from its center orbits or wobbles around its barycenter for all the planets except for Jupiter. The wobbles have the orbital period of the planets. The Sun makes a donut, not a wobble in the sky, in its orbit with Jupiter. This barycenter is outside the radius of the Sun. The donut has the orbital period of Jupiter. The donut is seen from the solar poles against the background of the fixed stars. If the Sun and Jupiter orbit around their common barycenter then in some real way the Earth orbits with Jupiter. In what way?

1. The sum of the x, y, and z components of the forces of the planets, when divided by the mass of the Sun is an acceleration.
2. The Suns acceleration over time is a velocity in a certain direction.
3. The direction, velocity and location of the Sun with respect to the background stars varies as the Sun loops around.
4. These movements produce huge tidal forces in the Sun. These tides may produce solar tsunamis.
5. The tides suck energy from the Suns rotation. Over billions of years the Sun has lost much of its angular velocity accounting for its slow rotation. As the Sun slows in its rotation, the Sun recedes in its orbit, the planets receded in their orbits.
6. This is a solar system wide Hubble like expansion."

 

 

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Archmonoth

[Bry]

**

7 hours ago, WildWill said:

I haven’t done the calculations on force from each planet. But I noticed Saturn is not included in the list… late night?? 😏 lol. I understand completely!

Derp.. my bad it was a late night. Hosted a cards night with friends and prolly shoulda waited.. was too excited about the rough implications and just running out of time soon with so much to do piling up! I appreciate the time it takes for ppl to reply to all this.

Here is list with Saturn in it. I think I might have paused there because of seeing how Earth had more Force on our sun after Jupiter than the rest of the planets, but similar to Saturn and found that perplexing and made me wanna recheck my numbers:

Ranking interms of %F

Jupiter (strongest)~80%

Earth ~6.8%

Saturn ~6.7%

Venus ~3.22%

Mercury~2.2%

Mars ~0.38%

Uranus ~0.25%

Neptune ~0.13%

Pluto (lowest) ~0.00001%

*******I realized I can just copy and paste my spreadsheet results here****

Hope its organized enough to be more helpful to explain my reasoning than ridiculous. ^comments below correspond to column above it. Lots of scrolling to the right to see other columns with force comparisons.

F = (Gm1m2)/r^2

N

G =

6.674E-11

(Nm^2)/kg^2

(m^3)/(kg*s^2)

N =

1

kg(m/s^2)

1 Parsec =

3.26

light years

8000 Parsec = from newbie

2.6080E+04

light years

Distance to center (of solar system or galaxy)

2.467E+20

m

1 light year =

9.460E+15

m

Solar Mass

2.000E+30

kg

1 Astronomical Unit (AU)

1.496E+08

km

Distance to center (of solar system or galaxy)

This is acceleration not F!

source from web

Object

# Solar Masses

Mass (kg) from web

light years

km (from web)

meters (r)

r^2

Gravity (m/s^2)

% of total Gravity

F (Nm^2)/kg^2

% of total F (solar system)

% total F solar System and galaxy

%(Fgalaxy/Fplanet)

%(Fplanet/Fgalaxy)

Fgalaxy>Fplanets?

magnetic field?

due to moving liquid core?

Earth

5.972E+24

1.500E+08

1.500E+11

2.250E+22

9.80

11.96%

3.543E+22

6.82352%

6.71000%

24.793%

403.3362%

no

yes

yes

Jupiter (average)

1.890E+27

7.780E+08

7.780E+11

6.053E+23

24.79

30.25%

4.168E+23

80.27379%

78.93834%

2.107%

4744.9592%

no

yes

Jupiter (aphelion)

9.680E+08

9.680E+11

9.370E+23

2.692E+23

3.263%

3065.0740%

no

Jupiter (parahelion)

5.880E+08

5.880E+11

3.457E+23

7.297E+23

1.204%

8306.8625%

no

Saturn

5.683E+26

1.476E+09

1.476E+12

2.179E+24

10.44

12.74%

3.481E+22

6.70347%

6.59195%

25.237%

396.2400%

no

yes

Venus

4.867E+24

1.970E+08

1.970E+11

3.881E+22

8.87

10.82%

1.674E+22

3.22404%

3.17040%

52.474%

190.5719%

yes

yes

Mars

6.390E+23

2.079E+08

2.079E+11

4.322E+22

3.72

4.54%

1.973E+21

0.38007%

0.37375%

445.121%

22.4658%

yes

yes

Mercury

3.285E+23

6.187E+07

6.187E+10

3.828E+21

3.70

4.51%

1.145E+22

2.20621%

2.16950%

76.682%

130.4082%

yes

yes 100x<Earth

yes

Neptune

1.024E+26

4.470E+09

4.470E+12

1.998E+25

11.15

13.60%

6.841E+20

0.13175%

0.12956%

1284.060%

7.7878%

yes

yes

Uranus

8.681E+25

2.946E+09

2.946E+12

8.679E+24

8.87

10.82%

1.335E+21

0.25714%

0.25287%

657.909%

15.1997%

yes

yes

Pluto

1.309E+22

5.900E+09

5.900E+12

3.481E+25

0.62

0.76%

5.019E+16

0.00001%

0.00001%

17499857.336%

0.0006%

yes

?

Sun (center of solar system)

1

2.000E+30

Total of Planets on the Sun

2.003E+30

81.961

100.000%

5.192E+23

100.000%

98.33637%

0.02

5910.969%

Solar System

1.0014

2.003E+30

2.608E+04

2.467E+20

6.087E+40

8.784E+21

1.66363%

Milky Way Galaxy (center)

2.00E+12

4.000E+42

Grand total F

5.280E+23

100.00000%

^Jupiter Has most of the force

^Sun and milky way distance left blank as they are center reference, use planets or solar system for distance ref.

^Earth has more %F than Saturn

^ planets having 98.446% of total F on sun

Not including total F

^for column above

^ galaxy having 1.66363% of total F on sun

not including total F

How much more influence planets have over galaxy

^ my calculation

^ for column above

How much more influence in percent the galaxy has over the planets

distance (km)

1 AU = 1.4959 e8 km

1.4959E+08

^not sure why percentages from gravity from web are different than my %F

Solar System Distance (r or d) alternatives

source: https://www.universetoday.com/15585/diameter-of-the-solar-system/

Sedna (radius)

1.4373E+11

9.60826E+02

Furthest object in solar system

Sedna (diameter)

2.8760E+11

1.92259E+03

Ranking of Acceleration of planets

Ranking interms of %F

pluto = 1/3 sedna dist.

4.7910E+10

3.20275E+02

Jupiter (fastest)

Jupiter (strongest)

80

Heliosphere (radius)

1.3463E+10

9.00000E+01

Actual edge of solar system

Neptune

Earth

Heliosphere (diameter)

2.6926E+10

1.80000E+02

Saturn

Saturn

Earth

Venus

Solar System from Galaxy Core

2.4670E+20

meters

Venus = Uranus

Mercury

heliosphere radius

1.3463E+13

meters

Mars

Mars

2.4670E+20

Mercury

uranus

Pluto (slowest)

neptune

Planet

AU

(Astronomical Units)

pluto (lowest)

Mercury

0.4

Venus

0.7

Earth

1

^These planets have most angular momentum to transfer to sun

^These planets have most mass per distance

Mars

1.5

Jupiter

5.2

**Lots of scrolling to the right ---->>

7 hours ago, WildWill said:

I also found the link to Gaia as well! Very cool. They are currently releasing their second dataset, with distance and velocity of over 1.5 billion stars (billion, with a B!) as well as an asteroid survey in our solar system. It looks very impressive. 

2 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

Again, depends on the distance from mass sources. The initial 8k parsecs from the center of the galaxy with a mass of 4 million solar masses, produces a gravitational pull similar to an asteroid. Much of the galaxy is further than 8k parsecs and has even less mass. I'm not certain the galactic core has zero effect, since we do rotate around it, but it isn't causing acceleration or changes in angular momentum of the Sun. 

I did post links indicating in the billions not trillions didn't I? My bad, that would be confusing...

I do notice whenever I google "mass of milky way galaxy", (which I did for all the masses) 1-2 trillion pops up more than a billion so I picked the high-ball number just to compare for a maximum-case-scenario. Heres a link from one of those and an excerpt:

"Combined with other kinematic information about these stars, the scientists calculate that the mass of the galaxy is between 1.2 and 1.9 trillion solar masses, adding significant precision to the previous estimates.

"Constraining Milky Way Mass with Hypervelocity Stars," G. Fragione and A. Loeb, A&A, in press (2017)."

**

2 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

I have posted this before, but the barycenter influences have already been modeled: Microsoft Word - solarsystem_barycenter.doc (wmich.edu) 

Also see the last link in this post for all the calculations of the influence of the planets. 

2 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

1706.01854.pdf (arxiv.org)

Thank you!

2 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

If the barycenter is shaped by a multitude of planets/objects (including the galactic core) then predicting the barycenter could predict sunspots. 

 

Where is the barycenter going next, Ie. what route is the Sun headed on? The current barycenter is outside the Sun's radius, and was inside the Sun's radius in 2017-2005 (11ish years). Momentum is being conserved (transferred) into turbulence in the convection zone of the sun, and waves/bubbles of plasma, magnetic flux, all sorts of perturbations are coming to the surface. 

2 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

The current route appears to be slighter shorter than the 1993-2005 route, which was the last time the barycenter was outside the Sun's radius. 

** If there was a surface location on the sun despite it not always being on the suns surface, I wonder what carrington rotation longitude it would be associated with , or heliospheric (solar system) longitude or how that location could be depicted upon the spinning surface of the sun compared with current sunspot activity?

 

7 hours ago, WildWill said:

ive been working on my iPad as I’ve been moving my office downstairs and I haven’t got my computers set up yet. So, working with images and spreadsheets, equations/math is much more difficult and limited… Imma gonna try and get it into workable shape today - but the face of the sun is calling me!

Totally understand, sitting on a stable working computer is harder to do these days with how busy and crazy life gets. I've got too many tabs open with exciting research articles, which slows my computer to a skidding halt! I find myself on my phone more and more these days as well. Sometimes it is easier to work by phone but not with everything. No worries, I understand life must go on as well and I must take a hiatus soon despite how deep I've dug in. Alot more time is needed for me to fully walk through the steps at the slow pace that I understand physical forces. I super appreciate everyone taking the time to respond despite how exciting the sun's been lately and the draws of being outside as well. I also really appreciate the folks keeping up with sunspot activity on this forum and establishing returning sunspot coordinates to track in real time so I don't have to do both!... and can focus on this slow task of reading all these well-over-my-head established written research pieces with painful differential equations and try to make what sense of or remember .

**Sorry for the epicly annoyingly long posts again, I'm trying to keep the concepts simple and central despite not being very concise.

Almost Summer Solstice, time to rejoice the peak of our years solar irradience with some time outside!

 

 

 

[Archmonoth]

2 hours ago, Bry said:

 

"Combined with other kinematic information about these stars, the scientists calculate that the mass of the galaxy is between 1.2 and 1.9 trillion solar masses, adding significant precision to the previous estimates. 

 

The total mass is not as relevant for local influences since the gravitational forces fall off very quickly with distance. 

Here is a quick look at the local area:

 

Despite the Scorpius- Centaurus association being so close, we are not being pulled/pushed from it. The Scorp/Cent system has stars moving parallel to the Sun.

 

Scorpius–Centaurus association - Wikipedia

"The stellar members of the Sco–Cen association have convergent proper motions of approximately 0.02–0.04 arcseconds per year, indicative that the stars have nearly parallel velocity vectors, moving at about 20 km/s with respect to the Sun."

 

This is just an example to show that the entire mass of the galaxy is not pulling or pushing us per se, but has their own local movements, including some of which are unbound, and not pulled or pushed (seemingly) by non-local forces. 

 

2 hours ago, Bry said:

 

** If there was a surface location on the sun despite it not always being on the suns surface, I wonder what carrington rotation longitude it would be associated with , or heliospheric (solar system) longitude or how that location could be depicted upon the spinning surface of the sun compared with current sunspot activity?

I don't think the surface changes with the barycenter route. The interior tachocline is smaller and spins at a different rate, just like the Sun's equator spins at a different rate than the polar regions. The tachocline spin causes sheer from the different in the convection zone and the tachocline, this sheer (difference in rotation) causes turbulence in the surface and the route around the barycenter is what predicates the conservation in this spin. The polar and equator areas also have sheer from different rotation rates. 

 

There is less energy conserved when the barycenter of the solar system is within the Sun's radius, and more when the barycenter is outside. The turbulence does not occur instantly and seems to take 11+ years for the turbulence to travel to the equator from the polar region, which is part of the observable butterfly effect. 

 

This might also be helpful: Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia

"For the Earth-Sun system, this gives 1×10⁻¹³ meters per second, or 3 meters in 1 million years. This is a 1% increase in the Earth-Sun distance in half a billion years. The deceleration of the Earth's orbital angular velocity is -2×10⁻³¹ radian sec² or -410×10⁻⁹ "/cy², or equivalently for a 1-year period, 1 second in 1 billion years.

Another, relatively negligible, the effect is that the planet creates tidal friction in the Sun. This creates a change in the distance to the Sun and the orbital angular velocity around it, as it does for the satellite in the satellite-planet system."

 

To me this means that with aphelion and perihelion, there will be variety in this friction. However, the angular momentum friction caused by planets is so small compared to the internal changes of the Sun having to travel around a tighter circle in the barycenter. 

 

This might be useful to revisit: The case study for the barycenter drivers of the solar cycle (1).pdf (uvs-model.com)

"Conclusions: Despite the gas giants when aligned directly with the Sun-SSB alignment were observed to have their pulsing effects for sunspot number, the ISN proposed solar minima or maxima in many cases were not dominantly modulated by any direct alignment of the gas giants."

 

At the end of the study, they list barycenter factors of gas giant combinations, which might be helpful for your calculations.

"The barycenter weightage of gas giants:

Gas giants alignment Abbreviation     Mass/Earth

Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune                      BJSN ~430.106

Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus                        BJSU ~427.495

Jupiter-Saturn                                      BJS ~412.959

Jupiter-Uranus-Neptune                     BJUN ~349.483

Jupiter-Neptune                                  BJN ~334.947

Saturn-Neptune                                  BSN ~112.306"

 

So total weights seems to matter in how the barycenter is curved, so if there are alignments, I think this would predict a curve/change in the barycenter, and a change in momentum conserved by the Sun when taking a wider or shorter turn. The relevant alignments are within the case link. 

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by Archmonoth

[Newbie]

23 hours ago, Bry said:

I don't know where to find your old post for the link.

Hello Bry it is in the link 2nd from bottom. 

23 hours ago, Bry said:

Is the inner heliosphere the same ballerina skirt that is our Co-rotating interaction region (CIR) spills out of?

Yes CIR's are embedded in the Heliospheric Current Sheet as it flows out from the Sun. 

 

23 hours ago, Bry said:

I thought so too but I've heard our galaxy is a point source of cosmic radiation. I posted these wiki quotes awhile back, back when I remember wondering what direction the heliosphere faces (like our earths magnetosphere faces the sun) and found on the heliosphere wiki page that the majority of cosmic radiation has been detected near the constellation scorpius. They also mention it shaped like coma with a "windward" side indicating a direction may just in the way that our solar system is rotating in the galaxy. The assumption is that most of the cosmic rays locally come from our galactic core, and apparent oncoming intersteller winds from our solar system rotating. That makes me assume the net force of direction of cosmic radiation would shift from sagittarius (galactic core) towards Scorpius with oncoming interstellar headwinds as we rotate. Let me know what you think!

The magnetosphere of the Earth is not quite spherical, it has a bow or shock wave facing the sun, day side and a magnetotail in the opposite direction, night side. Similarly a bow or shock wave occurs in front of the heliospere as it pushes against the interstellar medium.

Agreed most of the galactic radiation comes from within our galaxy, extra galatic radiation is detected as well. The shape of the outer heliosphere is like the coma of a comet. The 2D diagram of this is easy enough to understand, the solar wind prevails against the interstellar medium until it reaches the heliopause where the impact of the solar wind is all but negated. You can also look up heliosheath and termination shock.

Fun fact: it takes about 225-250 million years to revolve once around the galaxy's centre. This length of time is called a cosmic year. Therefore our Solar System is around 20 cosmic years old.

https://community.spaceweatherlive.com/topic/2200-solar-cycle-25-weaker-or-stronger-then-solar-cycle-24/?do=getLastComment

I did read this article it's 2016 not latest but worth a read. 

Copy and paste the link below into your browser. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/30/our-motion-through-space-isnt-a-vortex-but-something-far-more-interesting/?sh=59fb7b257ec2              Copy and paste into your browser. 

Cheers Bry,

Newbie

Edited June 18, 2022 by Newbie

[WildWill]

Howdy!

Regarding the mass of the galaxy, as I pointed out earlier, my understanding is that the Milky Way has a population of around 400 Billion stars, the sun being kinda average, that’s 400 Billion solar masses. But that’s only part of the picture. To that figure, we need to add all the nebulae, black holes as well as all the interstellar gas and of course dark matter and energy. And when placing the barycenter of the galaxy, don’t forget the 11 small satellite galaxies orbiting the galactic center, including the Large and small Magellanic Clouds. All of these “masses” are gravitationally bound to the barycenter of the galaxy. 
 

Thus, when you consider all the masses within the Milky Way, a figure of 400 billion stars and a mass of 1.2 to 1.3 T solar masses, at least to me.

Also, I don’t think you can exclude all of the gravitational effects of the galaxy outside of the solar system. For example, scientists have recently learned that we live on the edge of a “bubble” of interstellar gas! I would imagine that the total mass of this cloud is significant enough to consider…. 
 

When we look at gravitational forces. Keep in mind that the barycenter is an artificial construct which defines the center of gravity for a given system - such that the sum of all the gravitational forces (vector sum) acting on a body within the system is equivalent to that sum pulling from the barycenter. 
 

ive sat in the evenings trying to imagine all the gravitational wells, in combination. Overlapping gravity wells, if you will. We’ve all seen the drawings and diagrams which represent space-time as a fabric (in 2D), with the gravity wells as  the third dimension in the drawings. The deeper the well, the stronger the gravity. In the drawings we see, the fabric is flat, except close to each mass. The reality of it is these gravitational wells extend on to infinity. 

Think about this one - when viewed from earth, the gravity well of the solar system does not extend as deep as the gravity well of the solar system when viewed from a few light years away. 

Also, another interesting thing to consider… The earth’s gravity well dominates space around us, until you get to L1, at which point, the earth’s and moon’s pull due to gravity is equal. Once you pass L1, (earth-moon L1), you are under the influence of the moon’s gravity and your orbit transitions to a lunar one. As you approach L1 from the earth side, the force of gravity from the earth is reduced by the force exerted by the moon. At L1, they are equal. Beyond L1, the gravitational pull of the moon is greater, but still reduced by the gravitational pull of the earth.  Gravity does not cancel itself out when you have overlapping fields. It is still there and still acting. Hence, tides on the earth from the moon and sun… And most probably tides on the sun from Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus. 

 

The sun is said to orbit the galactic center (barycenter) once every 240 Million years. Thus, our solar system is being accelerated towards the barycenter such that the velocity vector of the solar system relative to the galactic center changes by 90* (assumes a roughly circular orbit of the solar system) every 60 Million years as it orbits the galactic center in its wobbly dance!
 

It is not really a force acting upon the solar system from the barycenter, but the sum of all the forces of all the masses within the galaxy(and beyond) acting upon the solar system. The vector sum of all these forces is the force, if applied from the barycenter would have same resulting force on the solar system, and cause the same acceleration of the solar system towards the barycenter of the galaxy!

 

When you start to imagine all those overlapping gravitational wells - well, after a while, I get a bit of a headache! On another scale, we have the galaxy in orbit around the barycenter of the local neighborhood… etc.

I believe there is a great deal we don’t understand about gravity… and how gravity operates at different scales. I try to view gravity not as a force par se, but as potential lines along which mass and energy (same thing) flow. The same for magnetic field lines…

The more I Learn, the more I realize just how much I don’t know!

[Newbie]

14 hours ago, WildWill said:

Gravity does not cancel itself out when you have overlapping fields. It is still there and still acting. Hence, tides on the earth from the moon and sun… And most probably tides on the sun from Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus. 

Found an interesting link regarding this. It may have already been posted. I didn't check. 

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-corroborates-planetary-tidal-solar.html (copy and paste)

... and an interesting table of planetary tidal influences on the Earth!  

N.

 

Edited June 19, 2022 by Newbie

[WildWill]

Following Newbie’s link, I found this:

https://phys.org/news/2016-10-link-solar-tidal-effects-venus.html

It finds another 11 year cycle… is it a casual link? Or is this the answer?

in any case, I found it to be quite fascinating!

Cheers!

WW

 

 

[Archmonoth]

On 6/18/2022 at 8:45 AM, WildWill said:

Howdy!

Regarding the mass of the galaxy, as I pointed out earlier, my understanding is that the Milky Way has a population of around 400 Billion stars, the sun being kinda average, that’s 400 Billion solar masses. But that’s only part of the picture. To that figure, we need to add all the nebulae, black holes as well as all the interstellar gas and of course dark matter and energy. And when placing the barycenter of the galaxy, don’t forget the 11 small satellite galaxies orbiting the galactic center, including the Large and small Magellanic Clouds. All of these “masses” are gravitationally bound to the barycenter of the galaxy. 
 

Thus, when you consider all the masses within the Milky Way, a figure of 400 billion stars and a mass of 1.2 to 1.3 T solar masses, at least to me.

 

In my last post to Bry there is a little graphic for our current location in the galaxy, if you are interested. 

 

Some of the nearby stars are travelling parallel to us, other stars are traveling away from the galactic core, and some systems are unbound, which means they are not orbiting the center of the galaxy. 

 

Distance can reduce gravitational forces to zero. the barycenter can be modeled without galactic influences and can easily be shown to mirror the route of the barycenter with just the local planets, including Pluto. The link for the modelling/gravitational simulator is also linked in my last post to Bry if you want to check it out. Pluto for example, makes a very small contribution, and any nearby stars will have less the Pluto in terms of tidal forces or gravitational influence. 

 

On 6/18/2022 at 8:45 AM, WildWill said:

Also, I don’t think you can exclude all of the gravitational effects of the galaxy outside of the solar system. For example, scientists have recently learned that we live on the edge of a “bubble” of interstellar gas! I would imagine that the total mass of this cloud is significant enough to consider…. 

We can exclude them, because their distance reduces their effects to zero, that's how intensity is conserved and illustrated in the Inverse Square Law. As much as the temptation is to consider that all things are connected and have impact, sources of intensity for any phenomena will reduce over distance. Inverse-square law - Wikipedia

 

On 6/18/2022 at 8:45 AM, WildWill said:

When we look at gravitational forces. Keep in mind that the barycenter is an artificial construct which defines the center of gravity for a given system - such that the sum of all the gravitational forces (vector sum) acting on a body within the system is equivalent to that sum pulling from the barycenter. 

Its not artificial. Why do you think its artificial? All position is based on relative geometry, this doesn't make it artificial. The sum of forces also decreases with distance, and the distance sin the galaxy from each source is variable, and immensely distance. 

On 6/18/2022 at 8:45 AM, WildWill said:

ive sat in the evenings trying to imagine all the gravitational wells, in combination. Overlapping gravity wells, if you will. We’ve all seen the drawings and diagrams which represent space-time as a fabric (in 2D), with the gravity wells as  the third dimension in the drawings. The deeper the well, the stronger the gravity. In the drawings we see, the fabric is flat, except close to each mass. The reality of it is these gravitational wells extend on to infinity. 

They don't extend into infinity; they diminish with distance. 

On 6/18/2022 at 8:45 AM, WildWill said:

Think about this one - when viewed from earth, the gravity well of the solar system does not extend as deep as the gravity well of the solar system when viewed from a few light years away. 

I understand what you mean, this is the shape of things, and our gravity won't extend into another galaxy, nor our galaxy extend into another galaxy billions of lightyears away, there is limit to the shape. 

On 6/18/2022 at 8:45 AM, WildWill said:

Also, another interesting thing to consider… The earth’s gravity well dominates space around us, until you get to L1, at which point, the earth’s and moon’s pull due to gravity is equal. Once you pass L1, (earth-moon L1), you are under the influence of the moon’s gravity and your orbit transitions to a lunar one. As you approach L1 from the earth side, the force of gravity from the earth is reduced by the force exerted by the moon. At L1, they are equal. Beyond L1, the gravitational pull of the moon is greater, but still reduced by the gravitational pull of the earth.  Gravity does not cancel itself out when you have overlapping fields. It is still there and still acting. Hence, tides on the earth from the moon and sun… And most probably tides on the sun from Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus. 

These are Lagrange points, or the environment of gravity. Lagrange point - Wikipedia

"Normally, the two massive bodies exert an unbalanced gravitational force at a point, altering the orbit of whatever is at that point. At the Lagrange points, the gravitational forces of the two large bodies and the centrifugal force balance each other. This can make Lagrange points an excellent location for satellites, as few orbit correction bit. Small objects placed in orbit at Lagrange points are in equilibrium in at least two directions relative to the center of mass of the large bodies." 

 

On 6/18/2022 at 8:45 AM, WildWill said:

It is not really a force acting upon the solar system from the barycenter, but the sum of all the forces of all the masses within the galaxy(and beyond) acting upon the solar system. The vector sum of all these forces is the force, if applied from the barycenter would have same resulting force on the solar system, and cause the same acceleration of the solar system towards the barycenter of the galaxy!

The sum of all forces within a range. 

 

On 6/18/2022 at 8:45 AM, WildWill said:

When you start to imagine all those overlapping gravitational wells - well, after a while, I get a bit of a headache! On another scale, we have the galaxy in orbit around the barycenter of the local neighborhood… etc.

If you are going to simulate this in your head, try accepting that some objects are unbound and some are locked, based on distance and hysteresis. (Previous positions) and not just the sum of all masses and velocities. The bottom line might be made of mass when you add all the light, angular momentum, resting mass ect, but rotation and conservation is transferring these forces between systems. We are looking at 1 aspect of the system, and not everything is transferred into this tiny point spinning around the galaxy called the Sun. 

On 6/18/2022 at 8:45 AM, WildWill said:

I believe there is a great deal we don’t understand about gravity… and how gravity operates at different scales. I try to view gravity not as a force par se, but as potential lines along which mass and energy (same thing) flow. The same for magnetic field lines…

The more I Learn, the more I realize just how much I don’t know!

You might enjoy YouTube or wiki on something called Double Copy Theory, which is that the chromodynamics of the quantum world is reflected (at least mathematically) into the larger world as gravity. Double copy theory - Wikipedia And this youtube which explains a bunch too, its an hour long lecture, but worth the time: 

 

11 hours ago, Newbie said:

Found an interesting link regarding this. It may have already been posted. I didn't check. 

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-corroborates-planetary-tidal-solar.html (copy and paste)

... and an interesting table of planetary tidal influences on the Earth!  

 

 

In regard to the Sun however there is a significantly smaller impact from planets, and the tidal force calculations in this are based on 1 AU and 1 Solar mass. With interstellar effects, the AU distance will dwarf many influences, even with 4mill+ Solar masses. This was something I found in exploring the idea of galactic core influence on the barycenter. 

[WildWill]

On 6/17/2022 at 11:24 PM, Newbie said:

. 

Copy and paste the link below into your browser. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/30/our-motion-through-space-isnt-a-vortex-but-something-far-more-interesting/?sh=59fb7b257ec2              Copy and paste into your browser. 

Cheers Bry,

Newbie

I found this article to be most relevant to the topic at hand!

i also found these over the last couple of days, interesting and with the read, I think.

 

https://www.accuweather.com/en/videos/the-future-of-forecasts-for-space-weather/GxVuVlIg

 

https://www.accuweather.com/en/videos/science-behind-the-formation-of-auroras/tPvydFsW

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030530081808.htm

Cheers!

Babba O’Riley 

 

[Sam Warfel]

11 minutes ago, WildWill said:

I found this article to be most relevant to the topic at hand!

i also found these over the last couple of days, interesting and with the read, I think.

 

https://www.accuweather.com/en/videos/the-future-of-forecasts-for-space-weather/GxVuVlIg

 

https://www.accuweather.com/en/videos/science-behind-the-formation-of-auroras/tPvydFsW

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030530081808.htm

Cheers!

Babba O’Riley 

 

Maybe post these in the new forum?

Your suggestion was approved!

[Newbie]

16 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

In regard to the Sun however there is a significantly smaller impact from planets, and the tidal force calculations in this are based on 1 AU and 1 Solar mass. With interstellar effects, the AU distance will dwarf many influences, even with 4mill+ Solar masses. This was something I found in exploring the idea of galactic core influence on the barycenter. 

That was my reason for posting Archmonoth. Jupiter's influence on the Sun is greatly reduced due to the distance between them. The minor planets (relative to Jupiter), asteroids and other bits of space rock exert even less influence over the Sun.

Newbie

Edited June 20, 2022 by Newbie

[WildWill]

On 6/14/2022 at 7:39 PM, Bry said:

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?

Interesting links! I’ve only had a chance to briefly skim through them, I’m gonna go back for a read this afternoon, while I’m waiting at the doctors office!

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...

Great Idea!

 

 

On 6/14/2022 at 7:39 PM, Bry said:

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

The Gaia mission is yielding some very delicious fruit! I’ll have my computer back tomorrow and I’m looking forward to checking out the data they have released!

 

Cool Runnun’s Mon!

Babba O’Riley 

 

 

 

[WildWill]

Hi Bry,

The term “tachoclines” refers or changes in rpm - Like a tachometer in your car, gives you rpm. Tachocline,is a transition region where rotational rates change, in this case between the radiative layer and the differentially rotating convection layer.

Tachoclines actually refer to “lines of same rate of change in rotational speed”.  Similar to thermoclines, which identify transition regions in temperatures between the surface and lower level of the oceans. Interesting things often happen in these “transition zones”. In the ocean, sonar does not penetrate through the thermocline. So, submariners often “hide” on the other side of the thermocline from a searching sonar!

I found this to be interesting…

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273117705009154

I hope this helps!

L & A

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by WildWill