Bry Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 Awesome array of responses! So sorry its taken so long to respond. I'm preparing to go to the Rainbow Gathering (where I first heard about Spaceweather!) in Colorado to pay my respects, so have many many chores and stuff to fix and prepare that has been piling up. Happy to report that I have fixed my car as well as the mechanic could! Thinking about all this space physics made me realize how much easier it is to fix my car relatively! I waited so long, its gonna be hard to respond to everyones well made points and article shares that have piled up. So don't be offended if I miss a point, I just have less time than before to read, write and respond, and will be on hiatus soon! Trying to compile all this cool new info! I'm going to start with trying to summarize what I think we are saying from this conversation answering my original question because it seems we have come full circle as of late and that is a little confusing.. or absolutely awesome!!! It seems if people are posting the original article I posted on tidal influences ... does that mean we have now exhausted all known mechanisms and explored enough to say that planets DO affect solar activity/solar cycle? (Barycenter, tachocline, solar precession and vortices, and this all transfers via angular momentum conserved when sun is farthest from barycenter (solar max?)into our alpha-omega dynamo?) I guess I'm saying I'm a little confused about what y'all are saying in general because it seems people (wildwill and newbie) are re-posting the same article I originally shared back in May from the topic "Why Many Limb Eruptions????" about tidally synchronized solar dynamo from Frank Stefani's lab. And I mostly gotten a vague consensus from Anarchmonoth, WildWill, and Newbie that the distances are too far to matter?? No pressure being absolutely correct, I'm just an explorer here wanting to go in the right direction. I just want to understand and make some clarifications for myself as I asked Scott McIntosh about this particular article and he didn't sound convinced which I'm still trying to understand...! I'm still convinced but I think I maybe don't understand what "internal" forces in the sun would control solar activity that are not influenced by other bodies around it as well.. nuclear forces I guess, similar to our Earth's mantle interacting with water and air as our own "internal processes" articles: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-019-1447-1 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.08692.pdf On 6/19/2022 at 11:30 AM, WildWill said: 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 lol....This is the same article from Frank Stefani's lab I originally posted. Does that mean you are an astrology convert now? haha Can we can now tell Patrick he was right all along!? Or at least have spent enough time to understand the mechanism a little better? hahahah (Orion IS laughing on the floor in the sky!) On 6/19/2022 at 12:27 AM, 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! Does posting the same article I started this question/conversation with mean ....that you now think the planets have a significant enough effect on solar our sun to influence solar activity instead of negligable due to distance??? Very exciting if so. I feel like I missed something from this conversation and want to understand what I missed that has led us to this conclusion after having dismissed distance objects effects due to 1/r^2 is all... Here is my original post back in May from topic Why So many limb eruptions??? for reference, after 3gMike mentioned he started tracking and graphing out what carrington rotation longitude is associated with the most frequent sunspot formation, and Chris explained to me the radial probability of an earth-facing component of a solar eruption. So many cool people here! ****QUOTE BEGIN******* sorry to repost whole thing, don't know how to just quote parts with appropriate formatting. Why So many limb eruptions???? on May 4th that "On 5/4/2022 at 1:23 PM, Bry said:" "Thank you for both for your responses! I guess my particular question was a little different than the original topic, but I do see how this explains how we perceive direction of a solar eruption if only less than 3% could ever directly hit us. { Longitude probability(60deg/ 360deg) x 100= 16.66%, and then a third of that is latitudinally equatorward enough to hit us 17%/3 = 5.55% (thanks to Chris, HB9DFG), and then I would guess a half possibility for the Bz to be north or south so we're left with 5.55%/2 = 2.7% total chance for a flare to directly hit us. } Couple that with the CME deflection, mentioned in the article from 3gMike, and we have very low chances of direct hits which makes sense considering our recent lack of activity. My particular question regards why sun spots erupt in the longitudinal positions that they do erupt relative to us in the solar system, not what are the probabilities a cme's trajectory hitting us, which i know is complicated, slim chances, but related. So to be clear I am wondering why sunspots erupt at the particular longitude they do, not the CME filament.. I figured when we are looking at a solar disk image, we are seeing half of the sun despite only 60/180 = 1/3 being geoeffective, thus we can see, relatively, if a sunspot is erupting on our visible half or not, which should indicate general longitudinal direction of a sunspot. Thank you for the article on deflection and rotation of CME's, explaining further how cmes are deflected toward heliospheric current sheets and away from coronal holes with a wider range of deflections near solar max. I like how they say "Better understanding of the rotation of CMEs is needed to understand the expected orientation of CMEs upon impact at Earth." which made me think of sunspot position during its carrington rotation rather than the cme rotating from the sunspot. I did take a gander at the active region 1158 they studied in the article, and noticed it spit out an x flare more or less directly at us in Feb 13, 2011, and there was a larger planet, saturn behind earth in the direction of the x flare directed at us. The reason why I am wondering this now is due to the apparent solar farside and limb activity and the fact that all the larger planets are mostly on the same side hemisphere of our solar system from us. This leaves Earth as the sole planet on this side of the solar system and seems like a good time to use as a control to check for influences on sunspot activity. I have been using the planets today and solar system scope online to view this arrangement. https://www.theplanetstoday.com/index.html https://www.solarsystemscope.com/ I have experienced a general lack of enthusiasm for planetary tidal influences on solar magnetism on this forum maybe due to Patrick Geryls hard to understand format and utter enthusiasm. I did however find these articles relatively recently (2019) regarding this topic after it got shuttered here, and assumed they were peer reviewed and accepted so I am confused as to why this is a forbidden topic. It seems to me like the largest masses in the solar system would pucker the space time fabric enough to change the magnetic dynamo of the sun, just as the moon affects ours. Also, it made me realize I don't have to look at planetary alignments to see if they are effecting us, I can just look at the sun's activity instead to see if a planetary alignment is influential. Here is easy to read review of the article: https://eos.org/articles/planetary-low-tide-may-force-regular-sunspot-sync-ups Here is the actual scientific article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-019-1447-1 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.08692.pdf Using solar system scope, linked above, it is super fun and easy to spin jupiter around the sun and fly through all the solar cycles to visually test this out for yourself. Jupiters orbit is about one solar cycle (11 years), and solar minimums happen within a few years of Jupiter and Venus's alignment according to article due to their mass and proximity. Solar system scope lets you check allllll the solar cycles too! Like back way before christ and further. I took a casual gander at some of the top 50 flares and solar radiation storms to hit earth and their general direction and the positions of the planets at that time and have so far found every more or less direct hit to always be associated with a larger planet being behind or on the earths side of the sun, which makes sense around solar maximums. It also makes sense that a cme's deflection would vary more during a solar maximum if jupiter and venus are more likely to be near earth than opposite it from the sun. I was wondering if the archive here has the longitude of the sunspot recorded for the farside as well as the visible side to compare sunspot activity with planetary positions. Thank you for entertaining my thoughts and putting up with this unpopular topic in essay format! Wish I could make this more concise to make easier to respond to. I bolded the important part. I am new to this forum and space weather in general and get stuck on seemingly simpler answers that go undiscussed. Thanks again everyone for taking the time to respond to the confused newb!" ****END Quote**** This is the same article I shared awhile back with Scott McIntosh, our local Hale Cycle/Terminator Determinator expert when I saw he was discussing with another commenting scientist on twitter about Planets and the solar flux graph. On 6/9/2022 at 1:23pm, Bry said: "i want to understand why people doubt planetary effects on the sun so much.. I even asked Scott Macintosh (Hale cycle scientist /terminator determiner) his opinion on planetary tidal effects and he said the mechanism did not have enough energy to account for the different solar cycle lengths. I think I found what research he was referencing and they only looked at solar barycenter effect in one dimension and did not account for non planar planetary orbits and definitely not considering changes in direction of overal cosmic radiation from our galactic rotation! " The Twitter response from this inquiry: So I did try and ask the local space weather experts on the matter what they thought of the Frank Stefani's work, especially since I saw Steve Tobias critically commented the labs work in the review I posted and then to see him directly talking with Scott McIntosh about planetary influence on solar flux on twitter made me want to take the opportunity to ask the question to them directly!... but it seems like they are both still not convinced the tidal effect can directly affect the solar cycle period. So what are we missing?? If our alpha-omega dynamo is powered by our tachocline which is powered by the sun rotation and barycentric oscillations which are due to the planets gravity and acceleration... I just don't see what other forces there are to consider locally on our sun except our planets... and the general mass of things. What I keep saying (which might influence how we perceive these results) is that planetary alignments do not cause more solar activity, but less, as during our solar minimums when the larger planets cluster near the cosmic radiation source (sagittarius, scorpius) and so we need to add that to how we weigh how much influence they have on the solar cycle and activity. Heres a repost of some articles that seem to suggest this inverse relationship: 6/14/2022 5:43PM, 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 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 So its easy to see why I am royally confused with the current consensus regarding tidal influences on our sun... since we have spent the last 2 weeks answering my question regarding (planetary and galactic influence on our solar cycle and activity) and attempting to convince me and Patrick that solar activity is NOT influenced by the gravitational forces of our planets. It seems a very confusing when a question based off an article is answered with the same article and contrary statements... Do we believe the distances between the planets and sun and galactic center are too far to matter anymore or not? Does the influence of the movement and mass of the planets and galaxy on the suns barycenter not influence our tachocline vortices to create solar surface disturbances in the form of sunspots?? Cheers to all this sun worship Not trying to step on toes but point them out for clarity! On 6/17/2022 at 9:24 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 This is really really cool and totally answers my questions in more ways than I thought! There is a direction to our heliosphere! I didn't imagine it would be oriented that way! On 6/19/2022 at 11:35 AM, 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. Does ~1.5% sound about right for total galactic force on our solar system? Is that too low to have an affect? I used 2 trillion from googling "mass of milky way galaxy" enough times.. which is 6? orders of magnitude larger than your 4 million solar masses for the milky way galaxy mass so I figured that might matter and I wanted to see what that number or percentage would look like. On 6/17/2022 at 7:25 AM, WildWill said: 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. On 6/17/2022 at 5:03 PM, Archmonoth said: "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." Thanks for the map of the Centaurius cluster On 6/17/2022 at 5:03 PM, Archmonoth said: The total mass is not as relevant for local influences since the gravitational forces fall off very quickly with distance. But I thought we realized that the force equation F = Gm1m2/r^2 1. requires total mass for both objects (m1, m2), not partial 2. because they took into account only the mass within the radius our galaxy is in anyways when using r = distance between objects 3. so force never really diminishes to zero but continues infinitely towards zero 20 hours ago, Newbie said: 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 I'm genuinely confused... Jupiter accounts for 80% of the force on our sun (according to my force calculations from my spreadsheet). What other force is there? I'm rereading what y'all have posted to get an answer.. i think its in there! Anarchmonoth mentioned how acceleration changes in the suns barycenter due to the planets that are moving the fastest? So a combination of the planets with most force and acceleration would paint our picture of what the suns barycenter would be? On 6/17/2022 at 7:25 AM, WildWill said: 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. In my spreadsheet I found gravity in m/s^2 for each of the planets from online sources, which is acceleration, not speed, which might explain why they are not in the order the planets are in. Does this explain why some planets have a non-circular/eccentric orbit, or they all do to some extent? Planets Ranked by Acceleration (m/s^2) Jupiter. 24.79 Neptune 11.15 Saturn 10.44 Earth 9.8 Venus 8.87 Mars 3.72 Mercury 3.70 Pluto 0.62 So I see why the gas planets might have more influence on the suns barycenter if it is based off the the planets with the most acceleration influences, as Archmonoth mentioned: On 6/17/2022 at 5:03 PM, Archmonoth said: 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" On 6/19/2022 at 12:27 AM, 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! N. So glad to see that article pop up again! Makes me think we're ready to tease out the last of those complicated mechanisms influencing our solar dynamo if you and wildwill have just stumbled upon it and not ruled it out yet. Very cool to compare how different each planets gravitational pull affects us on earth versus our sun! Crazy how Venus affects us (Earth) more than Jupiter, and Earth affects the Sun more than Saturn just because of how much closer and more rocky of planets they are. 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% On 6/18/2022 at 9:45 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. Yes! My head is starting to hurt thinking about all these overlapping wells that stretch into infinity... I appreciate the description of space time fabric..I relate to this statement too! Feeling the enhanced local gravity wells overlapping from the increasing density of my neighborhood when homes are converted into businesses and overdensified, and our land begins subsiding.. There are a lot of articles to read again and ideas shared respond to but i'll have to make another post, this is getting so long and its late again.. Just trying to understand what simple revelations I can, and might have happened since I've been too busy to fully participate lately. Especially if it seems like we have come back to the same conclusions again! Yay! Happy Summer Solstice Y'all! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildWill Posted June 21, 2022 Author Share Posted June 21, 2022 Hi Bri, That’s such a long post, I’m definitely not gonna quote it. I will address a few things… With regards to acceleration of the planets. I’m not sure how you came up with those numbers, but just like velocity, acceleration is reduced as the radius of the orbit increases. Also, the acceleration DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE MASS OF THE PLANET. We have: F=Gm1m2/r^2. (1) where… G - gravitational constant m1 - mass of the larger body - in this case the sun m2 - mass of the planet r - distance from the sun (as orbits are elliptical (Keplers first law)) From Sir Isaac Newton, we also have: F = ma As we are looking at the force on, and acceleration of, the planet, F= m2a (2) where F - the force exerted on the planet the sun… m2 - the mass of the planet a - acceleration of the planet Equating (1) and (2), we have m2a = Gm1m2/r^2 divide both sides by m2 (mass of the planet), leaves us with: a = Gm1/r^2 Here we can see that: The acceleration of a planet due to gravity in its orbit is independent of the mass of the planet! It only depends upon the mass of the sun and the radius of the orbit. Keep in mind that the acceleration changes as r changes, and as all orbits are elliptical, r is not constant. Here we have only looked at the magnitude of F & a, which are both vectors. They both point to the focus of the ellipse closest to the sun. (Kepler) I hope this helps! WW Hi Bry! I hope you are having a great day! When I saw the acceleration you calculated for earth as 9.8 m/s^2, it clicked! What you have calculated is the acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the planet. Which depends upon the mass of the planet and the radius. In my previous post, we looked at the acceleration of the planets around the sun. Here, we are looking at the acceleration due to gravity on the surface of a planet. Same equations, different application. Here, m1 is the planet and m2 is a mass on the surface of the planet. In the previous post, m1 was the mass of the sun & m2 is the mass of the planet! So, when I jump out of an airplane (w/parachute), I start falling toward the ground. My acceleration downward is 9.8 m/s^2. Notice that the acceleration is a constant for each planet- it is independent of mass! (Newton’s Law of Gravity). From your table, you can see that the force of gravity on Mars is about 1/3 of that on earth! Which is about right! To iterate: This is the acceleration due to gravity that you feel standing on the surface of any given planet. It is not the acceleration of the planet in its orbit around the sun. I hope this helps! Dr. O’Riley (post-doc research assistant kit-kat) 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archmonoth Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 (edited) 11 hours ago, Bry said: It seems if people are posting the original article I posted on tidal influences ... does that mean we have now exhausted all known mechanisms and explored enough to say that planets DO affect solar activity/solar cycle? (Barycenter, tachocline, solar precession and vortices, and this all transfers via angular momentum conserved when sun is farthest from barycenter (solar max?)into our alpha-omega dynamo?) I don't think alignments cause increases in sunspots/solar activity, but there may be a decrease in solar activity from alignments. The planets, their orbits and their mass are part of what makes the barycenter, so they directly affect the barycenter. The barycenter position in relation to the Sun changes how the Sun conserves angular momentum, either the barycenter is inside or outside the radius, when its outside, there is more turbulence. There is no sunspot increase during conjunctions or alignments, regardless of Patrick's assertion there is. His methods are to frequently predict, predict vague outcomes, and omit when alignments result in no-changes to sunspots. This can be seen easily, because during spotless times when there are non-productive alignments. There might be a connection to a reduction of sunspots from the articles you listed later in your post, which would be an influence from alignments. There is also an unknown, which is within the Sun. We can't see tachocline changes easily, nor have knowledge about what is going on within the core in real time, we see only the surface, the tips of the waves. Patrick disregards interior mechanisms as "debunked" but has yet to explain why or how, since it doesn't fit his narrative. We also don't know exactly how the Sun conserves ALL of its momentum around these turns. This unknown could be through charging/increases in the Sun's magnetic field, sharing momentum with planets in the solar system, or as turbulence which can take years to reach the equator/surface. To what degree of each is unknown, at least to me. TL;DR: Planets influence the barycenter, the barycenter has a variable affect on the Sun, and the Sun has various mechanisms which result in solar activity. Alignments and conjunctions do not cause real time sunspots, although they might cause delayed turbulence later. So yes perhaps some influence, but its complicated. 11 hours ago, Bry said: I'm still convinced but I think I maybe don't understand what "internal" forces in the sun would control solar activity that are not influenced by other bodies around it as well.. nuclear forces I guess, similar to our Earth's mantle interacting with water and air as our own "internal processes" This is a good analogy and very close. Underneath the convection zone of the Sun, there is the core of the Sun spinning, just like the Earth, producing a magnetic field from the dynamo process. Dynamo theory - Wikipedia Because the Sun has differing spin rates at different layers within. Similar to the Earth, there is friction and pressure/release just like volcanoes. Rather than molten rock, there are loops of charged electrons and protons. Sometimes electrons can get stuck in a loop for years and emit radios waves. The Sun also emits radio waves during flares, which is another avenue of energy being transferred between systems. The Sun has a core where the fusion occurs, which is only 20-25% of the radius. Explosions can cause spin changes, just like with a Pulsar. If you are unfamiliar, when a Pulsar is born, its explosion causes it to spin, then as it collapses, the spin and density prevent further gravitational collapse, but the spin rate remains. This is like shooting a cannon/gun without bracing yourself, the opposite force is curved and turned into a spin rate. Pulsar - Wikipedia "The events leading to the formation of a pulsar begin when the core of a massive star is compressed during a supernova, which collapses into a neutron star. The neutron star retains most of its angular momentum, and since it has only a tiny fraction of its progenitor's radius (and therefore its moment of interia is sharply reduced), it is formed with very high rotation speed. " 11 hours ago, Bry said: Using solar system scope, linked above, it is super fun and easy to spin jupiter around the sun and fly through all the solar cycles to visually test this out for yourself. Jupiters orbit is about one solar cycle (11 years), and solar minimums happen within a few years of Jupiter and Venus's alignment according to article due to their mass and proximity. Solar system scope lets you check allllll the solar cycles too! Like back way before christ and further. Jupiter is 25 degrees off/different each cycle. It's not in the same place, this could be a leftover attribute of the Sun's creation. Is Jupiter the Cause of the Solar Sunspot Cycle? • 3rd From Sol (paulkiser.com) "For the last six solar maximum cycles, Jupiter has been approximately twenty-five degrees (25°) further back in its orbit than the previous solar maximum. " 11 hours ago, Bry said: I took a casual gander at some of the top 50 flares and solar radiation storms to hit earth and their general direction and the positions of the planets at that time and have so far found every more or less direct hit to always be associated with a larger planet being behind or on the earths side of the sun, which makes sense around solar maximums. It also makes sense that a cme's deflection would vary more during a solar maximum if jupiter and venus are more likely to be near earth than opposite it from the sun. This is perhaps because the Sun is surrounded by planets, there will always be alignments and conjunctions because the term "alignment" is vague enough to be true most of the time. How many alignments and conjunctions with no activity? There are hundreds, if not thousands (if you are loose enough with the term) of conjunctions every year. Jupiter is always in alignment with the Sun, it just takes 1 planet to pass behind or between for a 2-planet alignment. The frequency rate is very high, and same with Saturn. For example: every 13 months the Earth/Jupiter are in alignment with the Sun. Saturn and Jupiter pass every 20 years, but there is no 20-year cycle, but there is a 22-year cycle, so you have to smudge by 10% to make the pattern fit. Mercury orbits and passes through alignment with both Saturn and Jupiter individually every 87 days. Venus orbits and passes through alignment with both Saturn and Jupiter individually every 226ish days. I hope this illustrates how alignments are common. 11 hours ago, Bry said: So what are we missing?? If our alpha-omega dynamo is powered by our tachocline which is powered by the sun rotation and barycentric oscillations which are due to the planets gravity and acceleration... I just don't see what other forces there are to consider locally on our sun except our planets... and the general mass of things. Angular momentum of a spinning ball of multi layered plasma is highly variable. Here is a brief wiki on spherical harmonics which applies to the Sun, since it has different internal and surface spin rates. Spherical harmonics - Wikipedia We are missing the tachocline spin rate, and the rate of fusion/explosions within the Sun. For example if there is slightly more fusion/energy released on the farside from within the Sun, 7 years ago, the spin rate, the momentum, the turbulence might take that whole 7 years for the perturbations to be seen on the surface. But eliminating the tidal influences is something we can do (and have done) and I think as we get more satellites (like the L3 spot) we might be able to explore this unknown further. 11 hours ago, Bry said: Do we believe the distances between the planets and sun and galactic center are too far to matter anymore or not? Does the influence of the movement and mass of the planets and galaxy on the suns barycenter not influence our tachocline vortices to create solar surface disturbances in the form of sunspots?? I think many of the distant objects are too far away after exploring their distances and masses. I think the local planets can shape the barycenter and the barycenter causes changes in angular momentum of the Sun, which is conserved and expressed as turbulence and solar activity. 11 hours ago, Bry said: Does ~1.5% sound about right for total galactic force on our solar system? Is that too low to have an affect? I used 2 trillion from googling "mass of milky way galaxy" enough times.. which is 6? orders of magnitude larger than your 4 million solar masses for the milky way galaxy mass so I figured that might matter and I wanted to see what that number or percentage would look like. The 4-million mass number was for the center/core, but the remaining mass of the 2 trillion is dispersed over a greater distance and would requiring each mass over a certain amount, within a certain distance. After a boundary of distance or mass, the effects are reduced to zero, just like asteroids in our solar system don't change the barycenter when they fall into the Sun, since their mass is too small to have the impact. Imagine a stone thrown into a pond, the ripples get smaller with time and distance. If multiple stones are thrown, there is turbulence, but the smaller ripples from each stone can cancel (inversely) each other out. 11 hours ago, Bry said: Happy Summer Solstice Y'all! Happy Solstice Bry! 11 hours ago, Bry said: What I keep saying (which might influence how we perceive these results) is that planetary alignments do not cause more solar activity, but less, as during our solar minimums when the larger planets cluster near the cosmic radiation source (sagittarius, scorpius) and so we need to add that to how we weigh how much influence they have on the solar cycle and activity. Heres a repost of some articles that seem to suggest this inverse relationship: 6/14/2022 5:43PM, 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 This was very interesting, and I see this as perhaps evidence of how Saturn and Jupiter when in alignment with the Sun allow the Sun to share its angular momentum with the planets to decrease turbulence. This infers (to me) the same kind of tidal exchange as the Earth/Moon. The tidal effects from the Jupiter/Saturn are not enough to perturb or increase sunspots on the Sun, but might be able to absorb/transfer perturbation away from the Sun. Very cool article! 11 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 Great article as well, and it reflects much of what I have been speculating with the delay in turbulence. "The delay of the solar activity from the corresponding configuration of the planets of about 10 years may be demanded in the models of solar activity, in which the source of solar activity is at greater depths in the Sun (radiation zone of the sun) and at the bottom of the convection zone." Edited June 21, 2022 by Archmonoth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bry Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 3 hours ago, WildWill said: That’s such a long post, I’m definitely not gonna quote it. I will address a few things… Yeah, I’m so sorry for the long post... its hot and crowded here, lots of interruptions, and it got late and I’m sorry for sounding deranged to newbie or to anyone else! Just asking what the consensus is on tidally synchronized influence of planets on solar activity/cycle...mostly.. and gravity and acceleration clarifications, respectfully. 3 hours ago, WildWill said: Keep in mind that the acceleration changes as r changes, and as all orbits are elliptical, r is not constant. Here we have only looked at the magnitude of F & a, which are both vectors. They both point to the focus of the ellipse closest to the sun. (Kepler) I hope this helps! WW Yes this helps, I see how a changing radius due to elliptic orbit would alter the planets angular velocity. And how that is different from the gravity felt on each planets surface, which has a radius that doesn’t change? From quote below, I assume we just use the mass of the earth and no mass for surface point. 3 hours ago, WildWill said: When I saw the acceleration you calculated for earth as 9.8 m/s^2, it clicked! What you have calculated is the acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the planet. Which depends upon the mass of the planet and the radius. In my previous post, we looked at the acceleration of the planets around the sun. Here, we are looking at the acceleration due to gravity on the surface of a planet. Same equations, different application. Here, m1 is the planet and m2 is a mass on the surface of the planet. In the previous post, m1 was the mass of the sun & m2 is the mass of the planet! What mass would be used for m2 (mass on the surface of a planet)? 1 hour ago, Archmonoth said: This is a good analogy and very close. Underneath the convection zone of the Sun, there is the core of the Sun spinning, just like the Earth, producing a magnetic field from the dynamo process. Dynamo theory - Wikipedia I have a lot more I want to explore with regards to similarities between the suns earths dynamo and magnetic field. Like how subduction contributes to our earths electromagnetic field by creation of highly conductive rocks (perovskites) deeper than our mantle form storing and organizing water molecules (3 oceans worth), and how the LLLSVP (large low shear velocity provinces) blobs from Thea remnants where our hotspots are located contribute to our magnetic field. But maybe that’s another topic/post. 1 hour ago, Archmonoth said: The Sun has a core where the fusion occurs, which is only 20-25% of the radius. Explosions can cause spin changes, just like with a Pulsar. If you are unfamiliar, when a Pulsar is born, its explosion causes it to spin, then as it collapses, the spin and density prevent further gravitational collapse, but the spin rate remains. This is like shooting a cannon/gun without bracing yourself, the opposite force is curved and turned into a spin rate. I appreciate there are internal plasma processes from the sun creating the initial moment of inertia upon the orbiting objects, and that precedes their effect upon the sun. Back to the climate talk, I did read that some climate denial is based off of the confusion that the sun is continually getting hotter as it expands.. but not at the same rate that we are warming the planets. 1 hour ago, Archmonoth said: Happy Solstice Bry! Thanks! Lots of sun today, just heard we might get our first round of potential monsoonal dry lightning in california! 1 hour ago, Archmonoth said: This was very interesting, and I see this as perhaps evidence of how Saturn and Jupiter when in alignment with the Sun allow the Sun to share its angular momentum with the planets to decrease turbulence. This infers (to me) the same kind of tidal exchange as the Earth/Moon. The tidal effects from the Jupiter/Saturn are not enough to perturb or increase sunspots on the Sun, but might be able to absorb/transfer perturbation away from the Sun. Very cool article! Stoked to have you all see this inverse relationship and consider it in studies implications.. It’s hard to compile all that is known into one study or know that they took all explored factors in! 1 hour ago, Archmonoth said: Great article as well, and it reflects much of what I have been speculating with the delay in turbulence. "The delay of the solar activity from the corresponding configuration of the planets of about 10 years may be demanded in the models of solar activity, in which the source of solar activity is at greater depths in the Sun (radiation zone of the sun) and at the bottom of the convection zone." I agree the potential energy storage and exchange must build up like an oscillating torsion-like twisting ... like my garden hose, and on a hot day it’s easier to untwist that stored energy. thanks for putting up with my excessively long format. I will to try to make it more concise here on out for referencing and readibility... but I’m going away for awhile so I’m going to step back, and do some deeper thinking on all this before flooding this topic again. I’m going to print out some articles/principles to spend more time reading and reflecting while I’m away from the internet, before I post again. a very merry longest day of the year to you all! P.s.- that sunspot arrangement that looks like a face on the sun newbie pointed out is finally turning away! I can’t help but think it’s the sun looking back at us, returning the feeling of self scrutiny with a stern gaze...as we spend this intense attention and time debating the suns inner workings! Reminds me to pause and self reflect on all I’ve learned from such a knowledgeable group of people here. I want to send appreciation to all contributors! I hope this topic feels inviting and engaging enough for others to chime in, (especially since I’ll be gone for awhile and can’t contribute) even with heated debates and my ridiculous length of posts impacting understandability, and basic physics principles repeated to a non physics expert (me). Ok I made this too long again, cheers! Bry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archmonoth Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Bry said: Stoked to have you all see this inverse relationship and consider it in studies implications.. It’s hard to compile all that is known into one study or know that they took all explored factors in! So, a question to explore is how much angular momentum is transferred to Saturn/Jupiter? It is stated from one of the previously linked studies that Jupiter and Saturn contain 86% of the angular momentum in the solar system. Perhaps there is a method to see when/if there is an acceleration/rotation changes in those planets during/after conjunctions, but I haven't found any yet. Edited June 21, 2022 by Archmonoth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 (edited) Bry Said: Does posting the same article I started this question/conversation with mean ....that you now think the planets have a significant enough effect on solar our sun to influence solar activity instead of negligable due to distance??? Very exciting if so. I feel like I missed something from this conversation and want to understand what I missed that has led us to this conclusion after having dismissed distance objects effects due to 1/r^2 is all... ---------------------------------------------- Hello Bry sorry it's taken a while to reply. Been busy. I wasn't back on the forum when you posted the original link. I saw it afresh. I did write that I was sorry if it had already been posted. We haven't ruled anything in or out just now. We have been considering many aspects including ●which frame of reference we should be using ●whether the systems are open or closed ●differential rotation of the core and outer layers of the Sun ●variations in angular momenta according to frame of reference We are still considering possible planetary effects as per the original article and galactic effects, everything is still on the table. I also noted the reference to the face of the Sun I posted The latest image shows a very much sideways looking glance. Still keeping an eye on us. Cheers Newbie On 6/22/2022 at 8:46 AM, Archmonoth said: So, a question to explore is how much angular momentum is transferred to Saturn/Jupiter? It is stated from one of the previously linked studies that Jupiter and Saturn contain 86% of the angular momentum in the solar system. The problem of angular momentum is certainly worth considering, as too, the frame of reference. There is much to learn. Newbie Edited June 23, 2022 by Newbie 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 1 uur terug, Newbie zei: Newbie The problem of angular momentum is certainly worth considering, as too, the frame of reference. There is much to learn. Newbie Angular rotation hidden in oscillating magnetic fields…. Currently there is only 1 theory we can use to describe the rotating magnetic fields ofthe Sun: the Rotational Kinetic Energy formula. This states that if the circumferenceshortens, the field moves faster. A phenomenon well known to ices skaters: when theice skater brings her arms closers to her body, she starts to spin faster and faster. Incontradiction to this, the exact opposite happens on the Sun. When a polar fieldmoves closer to the pole, and the circumference shortens, it slows down! How is thispossible? And where is the angular rotation energy disappearing to?The answer can be partially found in the other polar field: at the same time while thisfield moves closer to the pole, the other one comes closer to the equator and gainsspeed and thus also energy. This also seems to violate the Rotational Kinetic Energyformula: when an ice skater moves her arms away from her body, she slows down.But when a polar field comes closer to the equator, it increases in speed (*)!Clearly we have to find another formula for these phenomena. It is undeniably so,that a serious amount of kinetic energy is being released on the Sun. Only 2 physicalparameters are left to explain it: the speeds and the circumferences of the polar fields.We already used the speeds of the equator and polar fields in the overtaking eventformula. Thus we are only left with the circumferences. Can we use them to discoveranother formula? Do we have enough findings from which we can extract the sunspotcycle? I think we do.*Could this be a partial explanation why the Sun has only a small amount of theangular rotation energy from our solar system and that a part is hidden in theoscillating magnetic fields? (PDF) A New Mathematical (and Physical) Principle to Combine Gravitation with Rotating Oscillating Magnetic Fields. A unifying algorithm that solves the Sun's differential rotation problem. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329023855_A_New_Mathematical_and_Physical_Principle_to_Combine_Gravitation_with_Rotating_Oscillating_Magnetic_Fields_A_unifying_algorithm_that_solves_the_Sun's_differential_rotation_problem[accessed Jun 23 2022]. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildWill Posted June 23, 2022 Author Share Posted June 23, 2022 Hi Patrick, Thank you for posting another article from your personal library! I must admit, I don’t follow it completely. Nor do I see how you arrived at your conclusions. I’m not so sure that you are looking at a “new Mathematical and physical relationship”, but rather viewing existing principles in a different way. I also do not follow how you arrived at the conclusion that most of the sun’s angular rotational energy is “hidden” in the “oscillating magnetic fields”. Can you show me the math here? And your assumptions? I read your paper and could not follow how your arrived at that conclusion there either. Can you spell it out in simple terms,for me? it occurred to me that a better measure of the angular momentum of the sun would be to use the barycenter of the solar system as the origin and frame of reference. In this case, the total angular momentum is the sum of Lrot and Lrev. (Rotational & Orbital Angular Momentum). This choice of reference frame seems to be a “more inertial “ reference frame. The barycenter of the galaxy provides an even better reference frame… in my opinion! The value of Angular Momentum (L) of the sun cannot be measured using a heliocentric reference frame as it’s a (very) non-inertial reference frame. Ifmwemusemthe barycenter of the solar system, instead of only having the rotational Angular Momentum, Total Angular Momentum is given by the sum of rotational AM and orbital AM, around the barycenter. In addition, it was discovered about 5 years or so ago, that the core of the sun rotates 4x faster than the surface rotation rate. Taking into account these two items, we find a significantly greater value for AM. (L) INMNSHO, I believe using the barycenter of the galaxy is a much “more” inertial of a reference frame than the sun or the barycenter of the solar system! The sun orbits the galactic core at a relative velocity of about 240 km/s. That’s a lot of angular momentum! Remember, Angular Momentum is very dependent upon your choice of an inertial reference frame (which, in reality, does not exist!) The “closest thing” we know of to an “Inertial Reference Frame” is derived from the positions and velocities of a number of quasars- reference the Gaia survey mission. Iust a couple of things for your consideration. I know many people are “wrapped up” in the “‘Angular Momentum Problem”, but I believe the real problem here is the choice of reference frame. Another problem is that I don’t think we can look at the solar system as a closed system. While you may not believe there is a measurable force acting on the solar system from the galactic core, that force is enough to keep the solar system in orbit about the barycenter at the core of our galaxy. I think we disagree wrt gravity and “the inverse square law”. While the limit, as delta t -> 0, of F = Gm1m2/r^2 is zero, it does only reaches 0 at infinity! If you add up all those little tiny masses within the local sphere of influence with all those tiny gravitational forces, you get a lot of force. Enough to keep the,solar system in orbit around the galactic core at about 230 km/s! I don’t think this can be ignored! With regards to tidal interactions between the planets and sun, I don’t think they can be ruled out as a driver for the sunspot cycle of the sun. At least not at this point. I still think it is worthy of further investigation. As a side note, I read across a recent paper suggesting that the sun is actually fairly calm and quiet compared to similar celestial neighbors! It would be interesting to have a better understanding of the dynamics of some of these systems and be able to look more closely at them, to better understand our own star! Cheers! WW 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archmonoth Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 (edited) 6 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said: Angular rotation hidden in oscillating magnetic fields…. Currently there is only 1 theory we can use to describe the rotating magnetic fields ofthe Sun: the Rotational Kinetic Energy formula. This states that if the circumferenceshortens, the field moves faster. A phenomenon well known to ices skaters: when theice skater brings her arms closers to her body, she starts to spin faster and faster. Incontradiction to this, the exact opposite happens on the Sun. When a polar fieldmoves closer to the pole, and the circumference shortens, it slows down! How is thispossible? The conservation of momentum describes the energy exchange, I have been talking about this for quite a few posts. 6 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said: And where is the angular rotation energy disappearing to? Its conserved, usually by increasing the spin rate, like in your ice-skating example. However, since the Sun is more like an ocean, there could be a transfer to nearby objects like the Earth/Moon system. 6 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said: The answer can be partially found in the other polar field: at the same time while thisfield moves closer to the pole, the other one comes closer to the equator and gainsspeed and thus also energy. Yes, the spin rates between the polar areas and the equator are different, just as the tachocline and convection zone have different spin rates. 6 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said: This also seems to violate the Rotational Kinetic Energyformula: when an ice skater moves her arms away from her body, she slows down.But when a polar field comes closer to the equator, it increases in speed (*)!Clearly we have to find another formula for these phenomena. It doesn't violate anything, it's just conservation of momentum. Here is a NASA explanation which might help update your understanding of momentum. Conservation of Momentum (nasa.gov) 6 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said: It is undeniably so,that a serious amount of kinetic energy is being released on the Sun. This is part of what we are exploring. This turbulence can also be caused by rotational different within the Sun, not just the polar/equatorial differences. 6 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said: I think we do.*Could this be a partial explanation why the Sun has only a small amount of theangular rotation energy from our solar system and that a part is hidden in theoscillating magnetic fields? This is a possibility, perhaps its not the only method the Sun conserves momentum. The sharing/transfer of momentum to Jupiter/Saturn also seems like a possibility, since they contain 86% of the total angular momentum in the solar system. The "how" and "when" is what seems up for exploration and discussion. Bry is suggesting conjunctions my alleviate turbulence (reduce sunspots), by transferring momentum away from the Sun. Besides rotation differences of the surface and interior of the Sun, the biggest momentum changes are when the Sun makes tight turns around the barycenter. (Much like your ice skater) Those changes do seem to corelate to increased sunspot activity. Have you explored finding a correlation with sunspots and heliocentric conjunctions 11 years later? Since the meridional flow can take 11 years to travel from the polar areas to the equator, or from the core to the surface. Edited June 23, 2022 by Archmonoth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildWill Posted June 25, 2022 Author Share Posted June 25, 2022 Hi Archmonoth, I don’t really understand what you mean by “heliocentric conjunctions”. Can you put a definition on that? I was also under the impression that it takes ~170,000 years for light to travel from the core to the surface. Also keep in mind the sheering forces from differential rotational rates between the surface and the core, which rotates every 4 days - 4x the rotational rate at the surface. Pardon my ignorance as I’m new to Sun Worship, but what do you mean by the “meridional flow” taking 11 years to travel for the polar regions to the equator? I was not aware of this fact! If you are looking at momentum of the sun, is it correct to look at its “tight turns” around the barycenter. If you step back and use the barycenter of the galaxy as your inertial reference frame, you will see the sun and the barycenter of the solar system in a strange dance, moving about each other! Both wobbling as the solar system orbits the galactic core! On a side note, I wonder how much angular momentum is exchanged between the sun and the asteroid belts. I also am not convinced that tidal forces on the sun are so negligible as to be excluded. Tidal forces from the planets as well as from the galaxy. Last night, I tried to imagine the inner “workings” of the sun. In particular, flows in the convection zone, the chromosphere and transition zone. There are vertical flows, welling up and then sinking in the convection zone. At the same time, the rotation rate decreases from 7 days per rotation to ~27 days (give or take) Above that, we have differential surface flows.(horizontally). In the transition region, there’s giant filaments, moving around massive amounts of plasma! That’s a lot of stuff going on! Need to do some math! Cheers! WW 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archmonoth Posted June 27, 2022 Share Posted June 27, 2022 On 6/25/2022 at 5:50 AM, WildWill said: Hi Archmonoth, I don’t really understand what you mean by “heliocentric conjunctions”. Can you put a definition on that? Conjunctions or alignments with the Sun, rather than the Earth. On 6/25/2022 at 5:50 AM, WildWill said: I was also under the impression that it takes ~170,000 years for light to travel from the core to the surface. I don't think you are wrong, but why do you think it takes 170k years? On 6/25/2022 at 5:50 AM, WildWill said: Also keep in mind the sheering forces from differential rotational rates between the surface and the core, which rotates every 4 days - 4x the rotational rate at the surface. Pardon my ignorance as I’m new to Sun Worship, but what do you mean by the “meridional flow” taking 11 years to travel for the polar regions to the equator? I was not aware of this fact! It might take longer, but my understanding was from this article: NASA/Marshall Solar Physics "At the surface this flow is a slow 20 m/s (40 mph) but the return flow toward the equator inside the Sun where the density is much higher must be much slower still - 1 to 2 m/s (2 to 4 mph). This slow return flow would carry material from the mid-latitudes to the equator in about 11 years." On 6/25/2022 at 5:50 AM, WildWill said: On a side note, I wonder how much angular momentum is exchanged between the sun and the asteroid belts. Less than 14%, since about 86% of the solar system's angular momentum is within Saturn/Jupiter. My understanding of this comes from; 1706.01854.pdf (arxiv.org) "Most of the angular momentum of the solar system resides in the giant planets, with Jupiter and Saturn accounting for 86% of the total." On 6/25/2022 at 5:50 AM, WildWill said: I also am not convinced that tidal forces on the sun are so negligible as to be excluded. Tidal forces from the planets as well as from the galaxy. Tidal effects might cause turbulence, I don't disagree, but changes in angular momentum would certainly cause turbulence, and change in momentum corelate quite strongly with sunspot activity. If we can model (and we can) the barycenter with only influence from local planets, then whatever forces outside the solar system forces isn't noticeable in the model/prediction. For me, I am trying to understand how momentum would be shared to Jupiter/Saturn since changes have measurable impact. On 6/25/2022 at 5:50 AM, WildWill said: Last night, I tried to imagine the inner “workings” of the sun. In particular, flows in the convection zone, the chromosphere and transition zone. There are vertical flows, welling up and then sinking in the convection zone. At the same time, the rotation rate decreases from 7 days per rotation to ~27 days (give or take) Above that, we have differential surface flows.(horizontally). In the transition region, there’s giant filaments, moving around massive amounts of plasma! That’s a lot of stuff going on! Yeah, lots of moving and shaking for sure. Check out the rotation rates from core-->tachocline---> surface Here: Tachocline - Wikipedia About 430-435 for the core, then by the time you get to the surface it goes up or down a few times, ending as low as 370. I imagine there is all sorts of waves and shearing which can happen. On a side note, larger types of stars have another radiative zone outside their convection zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bry Posted June 27, 2022 Share Posted June 27, 2022 (edited) On 6/21/2022 at 11:32 AM, Archmonoth said: Jupiter is 25 degrees off/different each cycle. It's not in the same place, this could be a leftover attribute of the Sun's creation. Is Jupiter the Cause of the Solar Sunspot Cycle? • 3rd From Sol (paulkiser.com) Yes, I understand Jupiter will not be in the same constellation or heliospheric longitude because our solar system is rotating about the galaxy and thus the source of cosmic radiation and apparent interstellar winds (from the solar systems rotation about the galactic core) should change with us as our solar system rotates in the unexpected orientation newbie showed us as well. Its the age of Aquarius! **I found a cool NASA update about a suborbital sounding rocket launch today from Australia to study cosmic x-rays coming from the direction of Scorpius, or our current source of galactic radiation. This might expand more on why that information I found on wikipedia about source direction of cosmic radiation listed Scorpius as the apparent source. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/nasa-sounding-rocket-mission-seeks-source-of-x-rays-emanating-from-inner-galaxy "Because Earth’s atmosphere absorbs X-rays, our first views of cosmic X-rays awaited the space age. In June 1962, physicists Bruno Rossi and Ricardo Giacconi launched the first X-ray detector into space. The flight revealed the first sources of X-rays beyond our Sun: Scorpius X-1, a binary star system some 9,000 light-years away, as well as a diffuse glow spread across the sky. The discovery founded the field of X-ray astronomy and later won Giacconi a share of the 2002 Nobel Prize in physics." Here's a cool gif of where they see the two sources of cosmic x-rays coming from... a closer type 2 supernovae and type 1 from the galactic core. Interesting how cosmic radiation and x-rays might be coming from the same direction relative to our position in our galaxy. Here's my older post where I got Scorpius as the current source of interstellar medium from wikipedia: On 6/17/2022 at 3:35 AM, Bry said: 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]" ** On 6/25/2022 at 6:50 AM, WildWill said: Hi Archmonoth, I don’t really understand what you mean by “heliocentric conjunctions”. Can you put a definition on that? 8 hours ago, Archmonoth said: Conjunctions or alignments with the Sun, rather than the Earth. I wanted to add to the "heliospheric conjunction" definition based off my initial observations: ~ conjunctions with larger planets on the same side of the sun nearest to cosmic radiation source (Saggitarius, Scorpius) is associated with solar minimum ~ oppositions with larger planets on either side of the sun farthest from cosmic radiation source (Orion currently) is assocated with solar maximum . On 6/25/2022 at 6:50 AM, WildWill said: Pardon my ignorance as I’m new to Sun Worship, but what do you mean by the “meridional flow” taking 11 years to travel for the polar regions to the equator? I was not aware of this fact! 8 hours ago, Archmonoth said: It might take longer, but my understanding was from this article: NASA/Marshall Solar Physics "At the surface this flow is a slow 20 m/s (40 mph) but the return flow toward the equator inside the Sun where the density is much higher must be much slower still - 1 to 2 m/s (2 to 4 mph). This slow return flow would carry material from the mid-latitudes to the equator in about 11 years." Is what you mean by 11yr return the same as the Hale Cycle? The 22-year cycle when sunspots meet at solar equator and swap polarities. I remember Scott saying his main hypothesis was observing how "the Hale Cycles potentially interferes and modulates [sun]spot production" every 22 years over tidal influences in this last tweet: On 6/25/2022 at 6:50 AM, WildWill said: I also am not convinced that tidal forces on the sun are so negligible as to be excluded. Tidal forces from the planets as well as from the galaxy. I'm glad to see tidal forces still being considered.. however I'm still curious as to why Scott thinks the energy density is too low (as per twitter post above) to explain the change sunspot production. It would be hard to believe, but maybe he is not taking into account the two main considerations I have brought up since starting this question : 1. the positions and proximity of the larger planets to the galactic core and cosmic radiation effects during solar minimums (effect of galaxy on our solar system barycenter), 2. large planetary conjunctions have an inverse relationship with sunspot activity, (oppositions create sunspots during solar maximums) It seems like two 11 year solar cycles with larger planets clustering near cosmic radiation source would provide enough latent potential energy to be stored to reverse the magnetic pole signs on our sunspots. On 6/23/2022 at 10:02 AM, WildWill said: INMNSHO, I believe using the barycenter of the galaxy is a much “more” inertial of a reference frame than the sun or the barycenter of the solar system! The sun orbits the galactic core at a relative velocity of about 240 km/s. That’s a lot of angular momentum! **Glad you think so! On 6/23/2022 at 10:02 AM, WildWill said: I think we disagree wrt gravity and “the inverse square law”. While the limit, as delta t -> 0, of F = Gm1m2/r^2 is zero, it does only reaches 0 at infinity! If you add up all those little tiny masses within the local sphere of influence with all those tiny gravitational forces, you get a lot of force. Enough to keep the,solar system in orbit around the galactic core at about 230 km/s! I don’t think this can be ignored! Yeah, I was confused with Anarchmonoth saying I should calculate zero force for the galaxy's force on solar system when I clearly got a number greater than half of the planets force on the sun! I bolded the planets that have less force than the galactic core on our sun. F(galaxy on sun) = 8.784e+21 (Nm^2/kg^2) = 1.66% of total force of galaxy on sun!! F (Nm^2)/kg^2 % of total F (solar system) % total F solar System and galaxy Earth 3.543E+22 6.82352% 6.71000% Jupiter 4.168E+23 80.27379% 78.93834% Japh. 2.692E+23 Jpara. 7.297E+23 Saturn 3.481E+22 6.70347% 6.59195% Venus 1.674E+22 3.22404% 3.17040% Mars 1.973E+21 0.38007% 0.37375% Mercury 1.145E+22 2.20621% 2.16950% Neptune 6.841E+20 0.13175% 0.12956% Uranus 1.335E+21 0.25714% 0.25287% Pluto 5.019E+16 0.00001% 0.00001% Total ss 5.192E+23 100.000% 98.33637% Galaxy 8.784E+21 1.66363% Total 5.280E+23 100.00000% ^Jupiter Has most of the force ^Earth has more %F than Saturn ^ planets having 98.446% of total F on sun ^ galaxy having 1.66363% of total F on sun On 6/23/2022 at 6:44 AM, Patrick P.A. Geryl said: Incontradiction to this, the exact opposite happens on the Sun. When a polar fieldmoves closer to the pole, and the circumference shortens, it slows down! How is thispossible? And where is the angular rotation energy disappearing to?The answer can be partially found in the other polar field: at the same time while thisfield moves closer to the pole, the other one comes closer to the equator and gainsspeed and thus also energy. This also seems to violate the Rotational Kinetic Energyformula: I noticed other solar physicist seem to think the solar polar field is important to solar predictions as well! I assume Scott and others must be familiar with your work already since you focus on polar fields as drivers of solar activty predictions. I saw on twitter today that Halo Cme has as his handle description: "Solar physicist (alum UTkyAst). I believe solar polar magnetic field must be measured properly before predictions of space weather and solar cycle make sense. https://twitter.com/halocme From your research article you shared with us: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Patrick-Geryl/publication/329023855_A_New_Mathematical_and_Physical_Principle_to_Combine_Gravitation_with_Rotating_Oscillating_Magnetic_Fields_A_unifying_algorithm_that_solves_the_Sun's_differential_rotation_problem/links/5bf105fa92851c6b27c750f1/A-New-Mathematical-and-Physical-Principle-to-Combine-Gravitation-with-Rotating-Oscillating-Magnetic-Fields-A-unifying-algorithm-that-solves-the-Suns-differential-rotation-problem.pdf?origin=publication_detail I see how measuring polar vs equatorial speeds on the sun would elucidate the circumference and latitude of those regions, and ultimately sunspot position. I am just starting understand and see the conundrum you present with solar equatorial speeds going faster than the poles and catching up in an overtaking event (f1). I pasted the quotes that help me understand your process best. I will have to read more of your work tomorrow, it getting too late tonight, and this post is already too long again! I would imagine it would be harder to measure polar and equatorial speeds on the sun to determine solar cycle length, intensity, and sunspot location rather than using relative planetary configurations in our solar system and galaxy, if there was a connection solidified between the two. Like if a satellite goes out like SDO this week and we cannot monitor the sun, at least we already know where the planets will be in the future, and in what constellation to augment our solar cycles activity. Likewise, I also see how it might be easier to measure the net effect (polar/equatorial speeds) of the planets and galaxy on the sun in the form of polar and equatorial field speeds and circumferences rather than accounting for all of the angular momentum transferred from all the masses to consider! Awesome work Patrick! I think your explanation is helping me to understand what Scott is talking about with terminator events happening after solar minimums, and how solar minimums are not the start of the next cycle per se.. but a year later. I'll have to spend more time reading and comparing both your work because it seems pretty similar to me at the moment honestly, but maybe different approaches: He measures the solar cycles distance and divides by 100 instead of by time, and you are using distance as well and dividing by 360degrees (circular radians). But you both seem to calculate the latitude that sunspots maybe form at and their distance to solar equator ultimately indicating a solar max or min? I am new to this subject at this level of understanding so I'll have to take it slow. Here are some quotes I found helpful to understanding from your work: "2.2 Overtaking event An important point in this equation is the overtaking event as proposed by Maurice Cotterell in 1995. It is defined as the point where the faster equatorial field catches up with the polar field. At this moment the equator field has traveled a full circle more than the polar field (360/Ω/n/s )." "After (360/ Ω/n) = 83.7789 days the faster equatorial field catches up with the northern polar field (overtaking event). The difference is 360 degrees = 1 circle. Both are at the same longitude! Traveled amount of degrees equator field: 83.7789 days x Ωe = 1,171.27degrees or 3 circles + 91.27 degrees Traveled amount of degrees polar field: 83.7789 days x Ωpole/n = 811.27 degrees or 2 circles + 91.27 degrees 2.4 Conclusion: Both fields are 91.27 degrees from their starting point = f1north." "The shifts in the rotational speed of the polar fields are the dominant factor in low sunspot activity and induces lower strength in the northern and southern polar field. They are one of the key drivers in the variations of the sunspot cycle." "Figure 15. Calculated polar field strength for the northern and southern field gives a butterfly diagram. Remark: The dynamic approach is more complicated and will give a different pattern because the high of the solar cycle falls earlier than in the static approach. Also the absolute strength of the polar fields follows the sunspot cycle (see figures 5 and 6)" - is this similar to the solar minimum falling earlier than the terminator? "The changing speed of the magnetic equatorial field is one of the dominant factors which induces shorter and longer cycles in the northern and southern polar field length. Another one is the slight changes in circumference of the polar fields. These differences are the key drivers in the variations of the sunspot cycle. Furthermore, oscillating polar fields are a result of the effects of differential rotation. This means that when the northern polar field moves closer to the north pole, the southern polar field has to move away from the south pole, and vice versa. This results in early high sunspot activity." Edited June 27, 2022 by Bry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildWill Posted June 27, 2022 Author Share Posted June 27, 2022 (edited) Bry,, The posts you had posted in May were before my time a bit. I didn’t start coming here every day until around the 22nd of May and joined on 30 May. I’ve maintained all along that I believe the sun has tidal effects from the planets as well as the galaxy. I haven’t looked at the article in your post, but the one I picked up was that n Physics.org or something like that. It wasn’t an astrology website… except to say when Jupiter Saturn & Uranus are in Sagittarius… lol. Gravity is not a force acting on the center of gravity of an object. It is the sum of all the gravitational forces from every other piece of matter in the universe acting on every point within the mass at hand. As we (galaxy, local neighborhood) are orbiting the local supercluster suggests that all that mass, across all the galaxies of the local supercluster have an effect on our galaxy and solar system! The force exerted on every particle by every other particle in the universe! That’s what gravity is. An example would be to look at tides on earth. We have 4 tides per day (a lot of the time) because of the distinct gravitational effects of the moon and the sun. We can not model the tides by summing all the forces, we have to consider both separately. We can only model the effects of gravity as a force acting on a point (center of mass) in a uniform gravitational field - and an Inertial Reference Frame. An example here would be where you can ignore all the mass outside of your radius if you are in a sphere with uniform distribution of mass - and hence, a uniform gravitational field. So when you are at the center of the sphere, no gravity! Another thing to insider is that the universe is expanding - at the speed of light at the edges (instantaneously). And also from within, through inflation. Hope this helps… DrO RA F WW ———————————-New Post———-+———————- Hi Bry! With regards to Scott’s’ Twitter tweet, and assertion that “If it were tidal, we would see WAY more regular a period than we see…” I would venture forth an hypothesis: Neither Scott is a salt water fisherman nor a sailor”. To a layman, sittin on the dock of the bay, watching the tides roll in and then roll away…”. The tides are anything but “regular” nor predicable (without the handy dandy tide table in their shirt pocket). No offense to anyone intended here! Given what little we know about the internals of the sun, I think it would be premature to say that tidal influences can just be ignored. Tidal forces are exerted on the sun by the planets as well as the galactic core. (And the local neighborhood, etc… ). While the “energy density” does not seem significant enough, it is certainly far from non-existent… They also act on the sun from a number of directions and while the tides on earth are affected by the planets, galactic core, etc. The two dominant forces are from the sun and the moon. The picture on the sun (IMO) is much more complex and subtle. -Kealey Gravity is a force exerted by every single particle on every other particle in the universe! While we can use a “center of gravity” as a convenience working problems, thats not the way gravity works! Edited June 27, 2022 by WildWill Clarity?. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bry Posted June 28, 2022 Share Posted June 28, 2022 (edited) **Sorry for the crazy formatting problems in my last post. 8 hours ago, WildWill said: The posts you had posted in May were before my time a bit. I didn’t start coming here every day until around the 22nd of May and joined on 30 May. I’ve maintained all along that I believe the sun has tidal effects from the planets as well as the galaxy. I haven’t looked at the article in your post, but the one I picked up was that n Physics.org or something like that. It wasn’t an astrology website… except to say when Jupiter Saturn & Uranus are in Sagittarius… lol. I see that now looking back at the posts... I'm getting confused with so much information at once. I'm not trying to be judgemental to anyone, I'm too new at this... just trying to keep track of all this information so I can compile it all into some sort of sensible method. I am just poking fun about aversion to astrology because we use their coordinate conventions as our reference points and even the same tidal mechanisms potentially! I don't even know what the age of aquarius even means but it always hinted to me that our solar system rotates about our galaxy and isn't fixed. I think we're all on the same page now but different levels of expertise! (me - not so expert) ** I'll admit the whole point of this for me is to be able to investigate if we can use known and forcasted planetary positions (and our position in the galaxy) to indicate solar activity, as a reliable and predictable back up for space weather predictions when our instruments go out from the space weather itself. I understand looking for the simplest answer is irritating to some, but I can't help but want to understand it myself before I personally rule it out. Sorry if that is frustrating! I wanted to revisit the overall structure of Spheres of Influence that I'm gathering from responses, and what they imply, so I can organize and prioritize what calculations matter most, and are next to consider. ** I'm seeing how there are separate spheres of influence depending on what inertial frame of reference we are considering... and why they don't necessarily overlap. Geocentric - Indicates Earth-Directed Solar Activity due to involvement ~ Potentially also indicates (via local gravitational/Tidal influences on earth) tides, earthquakes, volcanic activity ~ influenced by: Earths involvement in large planetary heliospheric conjunction or oppositions List of Local Planetary objects with the most Gravitational Influence - source from Newbie's post, my percentage added, I assume if F = Gm1m2/r^2 m1 = earth mass, m2 = planets Solar Sys. Object Tidal Force %Tidal Force Moon 2.1 67.739103486763 Sun 1 32.256715946077 Venus 0.000113 0.003645008902 Jupiter 0.0000131 0.000422562979 Mars 0.0000023 0.000074190447 Mercury 0.0000007 0.000022579701 Saturn 0.0000005 0.000016128358 Neptune 0.000000002 0.000000064513 Uranus 0.000000001 0.000000032257 Pluto 0.0000000000001 0.000000000003 Total 3.100129603 100 Heliocentric - Indicates Sunspot Activity latitude and longitude ~ Influenced by: Conjunctions and Oppositions of Larger Planets List of Local Planetary objects with the most Gravitational Influence Source: from my Force calculation excel spreadsheet using (F=Gm1m2/r^2) m1 = solar system mass, m2 = each planet, r = distance m2-m1 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% Galactic-Centric - Indicates Solar Cycle Length and Strength ~ influences: only objects within the radius of our solar system (r) and potentially many other objects in galaxy, and our solar systems rotating orientation about the galaxys axis On 6/17/2022 at 9:24 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, ** I had a realization today based off Newbies awesome post above with illustration showing how our solar system is unexpectedly oriented perpendicular to the galaxy's axis of rotation (the top of our sun is actually horizontal, pointing in in direction of solar system). Making it look like our solar system is boring or drilling headfirst as it rotates with the planets vortexing behind it about our galaxy.. I was wondering if this actually solves the problem Patrick and others are finding with increasing solar equatorial speeds and decreasing polar fields violating the laws of conservation... If our sun is actually oriented (sideways) horizontally with respect to the galaxies axis of rotation, wouldn't it make sense that : (our dancer is now spinning horizontally about our galaxy) ~The sun's equator would go faster if it was now considered "the pole" (A horizontally oriented spinning dancer with their arms out) ~ and slower at the poles since they are now at "the equator" (A horizontally oriented spinning dancer with their arms up or down) Does what I say above make any sense to you Patrick? Has this already been considered or is Newbies post too new of a concept to have been applied? Would that explain why we unexpectedly see the sun spin slower when the polar field moves closer to the poles (instead of speeding up) and circumference shorten if its actually the solar equator due to galaxy's influence on the suns orientation and center of gravity? On 6/23/2022 at 6:44 AM, Patrick P.A. Geryl said: A phenomenon well known to ices skaters: when theice skater brings her arms closers to her body, she starts to spin faster and faster. Incontradiction to this, the exact opposite happens on the Sun. When a polar fieldmoves closer to the pole, and the circumference shortens, it slows down! How is thispossible? And where is the angular rotation energy disappearing to?The answer can be partially found in the other polar field: at the same time while thisfield moves closer to the pole, the other one comes closer to the equator and gainsspeed and thus also energy. This also seems to violate the Rotational Kinetic Energyformula: Basically, maybe we are not accounting for how our perspective of the sun spinning with its equator and poles is not accurately depicting how our solar system is oriented (perpendicular) within with respect to the center of the galaxy axis. And that ultimately impacts the center of gravity barycenter of our sun if our solar system is perpendicular to our normal frame of reference (top of Sun is north for us). Does that make any sense? It makes a whole lot of sense to me, especially if many physicists are not considering the overall barycentric effects of the galactic core making our sun being oriented perpendicular, and that affecting how we perceive what is a pole vs equator on our sun. I attached the two images from Patricks work to show the conundrum with viewing the sun upright and taking polar and equatorial angular rotational speeds. By turning these images of the sun on their side you can see what I mean by the center of gravity changing with respect to the galaxy's influence on the suns center of gravity. The faster speeds at the equator are now considered the poles and vice versa. I also see the how its hard to have a solid convention for time when its based off the degrees an objects turned per number of earth days! I wish I could just doodle on here for clarity. Criteria for Predicting Sunspots - Large Planet Heliocentric Oppositions In attempting to clarify the criteria to predict sunspot activity/eruptions.. I noticed.. when looking for space weather data near the days a nuclear test was last done on 9/3/2017 to see how it affected our sensors, that there were some X8-X9 level flares a couple of days afterwards, and someone recently also noticed and illustrated how Jupiter and Saturn were oriented opposite of the sun from us, aligned with where the sunspots erupted. (Nevermind that perhaps when the Earth has a large enough nuclear test, and the fact that we are the 2nd most influential planet on the sun due to mass and distance... we (earth) might actually influence solar activity. Just a guess based off the differently weighted planet lists for each inertial reference frame for force.) I appreciate this person, Leslie, was able to show how the sunspot erupted opposite of where larger planets Jupiter and Saturn were respectively at the time... So the sunspot appears to erupt towards the smaller planet in opposite alignment from the larger planet with sun in the middle. This might help distill some criteria needed to suggest where sunspots might erupt next. I assume if Earth was involved in one of these opposition alignments with the sun in the middle.. we might see more earth-directed action. I also wonder why Jupiter and Saturn aren't on the wsa-enlil model animation if they and earth are the most important players in our solar system gravity wise. This is just meant to help clarify the criteria for what constitutes an alignment as Anarchmonoth as asked, and I think its a really good point. Here's his quotes that helped me single down the criteria. On 6/15/2022 at 10:42PM, Anarchmonoth 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 12:46PM, Anarchmonoth said: 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. On 6/17/2022 at 11:55AM, Anarchmonoth said: 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. " On 6/26/2022 at 5:52 PM, Archmonoth said: Conjunctions or alignments with the Sun, rather than the Earth. Hopefully this new specific criteria from above makes sense now. During large planet oppositions (Jupiter, Earth, Saturn) Sunspots erupt in direction of smaller planet during height of solar cycle. I'm not sure how conjunctions confer to solar activity with smaller planets still being able to align opposite the sun as we see recently with Ceres - Sun - Pluto or Ceres - Sun - Moon - Earth alignments going on right now. ***Might explain why the larger eruptions have been on the farside lately... since the larger planets in opposition are Saturn and us (earth) so I would expect to see sunspot eruptions in opposite direction towards the smaller planetary body. I hope that makes sense that there is a different number of instances of larger planets aligning opposite the sun than aligned on the same side in conjunction, and that seems to me to be the deciding factor in determining significant solar activity and direction. But I think we all agree at least for considering solar activity or sunspot activity, we need the sun to be the center point of alignment to have the most effect (oppositions), and the sun to be at the end of an alignment during conjunctions for the least sunspot activity. 8 hours ago, WildWill said: An example would be to look at tides on earth. We have 4 tides per day (a lot of the time) because of the distinct gravitational effects of the moon and the sun. We can not model the tides by summing all the forces, we have to consider both separately. I see what you are saying about calculating things separately, that why I was wondering about comparing the force between the galaxy and the solar system vs the force between each planet and our sun individually. I do see how separating the reference frame of inertia will give you different layers of effects individually... Which might be why the Moon, Sun, then Venus influences Earths tidal, tectonic, and earth-directed solar activity differently than Jupiter, Earth, and Saturn influence our Sun's activity towards them or us. Different frames of reference (geocentric, heliocentric, galaxy-centric) can predict different outcomes (Earth directed activity influences, sunspot activity influences, solar cycle length and magnitude influences). Combining them would be the hard task and still might not end up with a perfect model.. 8 hours ago, WildWill said: We can only model the effects of gravity as a force acting on a point (center of mass) in a uniform gravitational field - and an Inertial Reference Frame. An example here would be where you can ignore all the mass outside of your radius if you are in a sphere with uniform distribution of mass - and hence, a uniform gravitational field. So when you are at the center of the sphere, no gravity! I feel like we keep going in circles about this.. but doesn't the force equation F = Gm1m2/r^2 use r which is the radius of the object m2 from m1 so would only account for the mass within that radius anyways? And you would only use this equation if m1 and m2 are far enough apart and not within the center of the sphere with no gravity. I see how this would apply when maybe comparing the different planets distance to our galaxy rather than the solar system as a whole.. as at that far of a distance the individual difference in distances amongst planets to the galaxy do not matter. I understand that the gravitational acceleration for each planet (ex. earth = 9.8 m/s^2) I had on my excel sheet was looking at the force of acceleration felt on each planets surface, which is different than their orbiting speed (m/s) which is in the order they are naturally from the sun. I think I'm starting to understand what you all are saying, please feel free to bother to join in and correct me! Sorry to have to rehash so much old information for me to inch forward with understanding what to calculate next, how its "weighted", and how to combine them. Glad the sun settled down, it was getting hard to study it calmly with so much confusing and mysterious geomagnetic activity yesterday! **Cheers solar and galactic worshippers! Edited June 28, 2022 by Bry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildWill Posted June 29, 2022 Author Share Posted June 29, 2022 Hi Bry, No quotes here… lol With regards to aversion to astrology, I have no aversion to it. Astrology and interest in and practice of, has lead to our acquiring a great deal of knowledge… only not about aunt Martha’s Siamese Cat… We do have a lot more tools, etc., nowadays, so the whole mystic thing just doesn’t do it for me… although, emergency room visits and crime stats can be tied to the full moon, and at a smaller scale, the sunspot cycle! W 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildWill Posted June 29, 2022 Author Share Posted June 29, 2022 Hi Bry, wrt: going around in a circle about modeling systems by using the sum of all the forces on a given body’s as a single force through the center of gravity. For a lot of things, you can use the formula F=Gm1m2/r^2 - which makes the math much simpler. The whole point being that we can use this approximation under certain conditions, but that’s not the way the world really works. Gravity is not the vector sum of all the forces acting on the body acting through the barycenter. It is actually all those forces acting on the “object”. These need not be “point forces”, but often are forces spread out along the surface. Take a crane, like they use to build skyscrapers with. It has a really big point force at the end - when it’s lifting something. When it’s not, and even when it is, you have the force of gravity on the boom, distributed along the length of the crane’s boom. That’s reality, but, for most practical purposes, we can model that force acting on the crane as a single force acting on the center of gravity of the boom. Does that make sense? I think the short answer is yes, and no. In certain situations, we can model a system as a point force acting on the center of gravity(or mass, depending on the situation) of that system. But, again, while we can model it that way in many situations, that’s not the way it works and the assumptions within the system you are analyzing should be carefully examined to see if they are still valid. Cheers. L 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick P.A. Geryl Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 Op 28/6/2022 om 04:26, Bry zei: **Sorry for the crazy formatting problems in my last post. I see that now looking back at the posts... I'm getting confused with so much information at once. I'm not trying to be judgemental to anyone, I'm too new at this... just trying to keep track of all this information so I can compile it all into some sort of sensible method. I am just poking fun about aversion to astrology because we use their coordinate conventions as our reference points and even the same tidal mechanisms potentially! I don't even know what the age of aquarius even means but it always hinted to me that our solar system rotates about our galaxy and isn't fixed. I think we're all on the same page now but different levels of expertise! (me - not so expert) ** I'll admit the whole point of this for me is to be able to investigate if we can use known and forcasted planetary positions (and our position in the galaxy) to indicate solar activity, as a reliable and predictable back up for space weather predictions when our instruments go out from the space weather itself. I understand looking for the simplest answer is irritating to some, but I can't help but want to understand it myself before I personally rule it out. Sorry if that is frustrating! I wanted to revisit the overall structure of Spheres of Influence that I'm gathering from responses, and what they imply, so I can organize and prioritize what calculations matter most, and are next to consider. ** I'm seeing how there are separate spheres of influence depending on what inertial frame of reference we are considering... and why they don't necessarily overlap. Geocentric - Indicates Earth-Directed Solar Activity due to involvement ~ Potentially also indicates (via local gravitational/Tidal influences on earth) tides, earthquakes, volcanic activity ~ influenced by: Earths involvement in large planetary heliospheric conjunction or oppositions List of Local Planetary objects with the most Gravitational Influence - source from Newbie's post, my percentage added, I assume if F = Gm1m2/r^2 m1 = earth mass, m2 = planets Solar Sys. Object Tidal Force %Tidal Force Moon 2.1 67.739103486763 Sun 1 32.256715946077 Venus 0.000113 0.003645008902 Jupiter 0.0000131 0.000422562979 Mars 0.0000023 0.000074190447 Mercury 0.0000007 0.000022579701 Saturn 0.0000005 0.000016128358 Neptune 0.000000002 0.000000064513 Uranus 0.000000001 0.000000032257 Pluto 0.0000000000001 0.000000000003 Total 3.100129603 100 Heliocentric - Indicates Sunspot Activity latitude and longitude ~ Influenced by: Conjunctions and Oppositions of Larger Planets List of Local Planetary objects with the most Gravitational Influence Source: from my Force calculation excel spreadsheet using (F=Gm1m2/r^2) m1 = solar system mass, m2 = each planet, r = distance m2-m1 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% Galactic-Centric - Indicates Solar Cycle Length and Strength ~ influences: only objects within the radius of our solar system (r) and potentially many other objects in galaxy, and our solar systems rotating orientation about the galaxys axis ** I had a realization today based off Newbies awesome post above with illustration showing how our solar system is unexpectedly oriented perpendicular to the galaxy's axis of rotation (the top of our sun is actually horizontal, pointing in in direction of solar system). Making it look like our solar system is boring or drilling headfirst as it rotates with the planets vortexing behind it about our galaxy.. I was wondering if this actually solves the problem Patrick and others are finding with increasing solar equatorial speeds and decreasing polar fields violating the laws of conservation... If our sun is actually oriented (sideways) horizontally with respect to the galaxies axis of rotation, wouldn't it make sense that : (our dancer is now spinning horizontally about our galaxy) ~The sun's equator would go faster if it was now considered "the pole" (A horizontally oriented spinning dancer with their arms out) ~ and slower at the poles since they are now at "the equator" (A horizontally oriented spinning dancer with their arms up or down) Does what I say above make any sense to you Patrick? Has this already been considered or is Newbies post too new of a concept to have been applied? Would that explain why we unexpectedly see the sun spin slower when the polar field moves closer to the poles (instead of speeding up) and circumference shorten if its actually the solar equator due to galaxy's influence on the suns orientation and center of gravity? Basically, maybe we are not accounting for how our perspective of the sun spinning with its equator and poles is not accurately depicting how our solar system is oriented (perpendicular) within with respect to the center of the galaxy axis. And that ultimately impacts the center of gravity barycenter of our sun if our solar system is perpendicular to our normal frame of reference (top of Sun is north for us). Does that make any sense? It makes a whole lot of sense to me, especially if many physicists are not considering the overall barycentric effects of the galactic core making our sun being oriented perpendicular, and that affecting how we perceive what is a pole vs equator on our sun. I attached the two images from Patricks work to show the conundrum with viewing the sun upright and taking polar and equatorial angular rotational speeds. By turning these images of the sun on their side you can see what I mean by the center of gravity changing with respect to the galaxy's influence on the suns center of gravity. The faster speeds at the equator are now considered the poles and vice versa. I also see the how its hard to have a solid convention for time when its based off the degrees an objects turned per number of earth days! I wish I could just doodle on here for clarity. Criteria for Predicting Sunspots - Large Planet Heliocentric Oppositions In attempting to clarify the criteria to predict sunspot activity/eruptions.. I noticed.. when looking for space weather data near the days a nuclear test was last done on 9/3/2017 to see how it affected our sensors, that there were some X8-X9 level flares a couple of days afterwards, and someone recently also noticed and illustrated how Jupiter and Saturn were oriented opposite of the sun from us, aligned with where the sunspots erupted. (Nevermind that perhaps when the Earth has a large enough nuclear test, and the fact that we are the 2nd most influential planet on the sun due to mass and distance... we (earth) might actually influence solar activity. Just a guess based off the differently weighted planet lists for each inertial reference frame for force.) I appreciate this person, Leslie, was able to show how the sunspot erupted opposite of where larger planets Jupiter and Saturn were respectively at the time... So the sunspot appears to erupt towards the smaller planet in opposite alignment from the larger planet with sun in the middle. This might help distill some criteria needed to suggest where sunspots might erupt next. I assume if Earth was involved in one of these opposition alignments with the sun in the middle.. we might see more earth-directed action. I also wonder why Jupiter and Saturn aren't on the wsa-enlil model animation if they and earth are the most important players in our solar system gravity wise. This is just meant to help clarify the criteria for what constitutes an alignment as Anarchmonoth as asked, and I think its a really good point. Here's his quotes that helped me single down the criteria. On 6/15/2022 at 10:42PM, Anarchmonoth 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 12:46PM, Anarchmonoth said: 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. On 6/17/2022 at 11:55AM, Anarchmonoth said: 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. " Hopefully this new specific criteria from above makes sense now. During large planet oppositions (Jupiter, Earth, Saturn) Sunspots erupt in direction of smaller planet during height of solar cycle. I'm not sure how conjunctions confer to solar activity with smaller planets still being able to align opposite the sun as we see recently with Ceres - Sun - Pluto or Ceres - Sun - Moon - Earth alignments going on right now. ***Might explain why the larger eruptions have been on the farside lately... since the larger planets in opposition are Saturn and us (earth) so I would expect to see sunspot eruptions in opposite direction towards the smaller planetary body. I hope that makes sense that there is a different number of instances of larger planets aligning opposite the sun than aligned on the same side in conjunction, and that seems to me to be the deciding factor in determining significant solar activity and direction. But I think we all agree at least for considering solar activity or sunspot activity, we need the sun to be the center point of alignment to have the most effect (oppositions), and the sun to be at the end of an alignment during conjunctions for the least sunspot activity. I see what you are saying about calculating things separately, that why I was wondering about comparing the force between the galaxy and the solar system vs the force between each planet and our sun individually. I do see how separating the reference frame of inertia will give you different layers of effects individually... Which might be why the Moon, Sun, then Venus influences Earths tidal, tectonic, and earth-directed solar activity differently than Jupiter, Earth, and Saturn influence our Sun's activity towards them or us. Different frames of reference (geocentric, heliocentric, galaxy-centric) can predict different outcomes (Earth directed activity influences, sunspot activity influences, solar cycle length and magnitude influences). Combining them would be the hard task and still might not end up with a perfect model.. I feel like we keep going in circles about this.. but doesn't the force equation F = Gm1m2/r^2 use r which is the radius of the object m2 from m1 so would only account for the mass within that radius anyways? And you would only use this equation if m1 and m2 are far enough apart and not within the center of the sphere with no gravity. I see how this would apply when maybe comparing the different planets distance to our galaxy rather than the solar system as a whole.. as at that far of a distance the individual difference in distances amongst planets to the galaxy do not matter. I understand that the gravitational acceleration for each planet (ex. earth = 9.8 m/s^2) I had on my excel sheet was looking at the force of acceleration felt on each planets surface, which is different than their orbiting speed (m/s) which is in the order they are naturally from the sun. I think I'm starting to understand what you all are saying, please feel free to bother to join in and correct me! Sorry to have to rehash so much old information for me to inch forward with understanding what to calculate next, how its "weighted", and how to combine them. Glad the sun settled down, it was getting hard to study it calmly with so much confusing and mysterious geomagnetic activity yesterday! **Cheers solar and galactic worshippers! angular momentum transport… new findings… https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.14214.pdf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) Patrick: for some reason I can't put your quote in here! I found this paper interesting Patrick... and although they looked at the transport of Angular Momentum, they did raise a point or two I felt was worthy of discussion. They also stated that their results do not carry across to what is happening cosmically and further investigations were needed. Their use of the metal mixture Galinstan, while being easy to use in the laborarory, because of it's low melting point (lower than the metals it is comprised of) bears little resemblance to plasma. They did mention the parasitic behaviour of boundaries. Do you know what they were referring to by this? I have been thinking about boundaries within the Sun. One in particular, the interface between the radiative zone and the convective zone. What happens at 0.7 solar radii, where no convection suddenly meets intense convection? I'm guessing I'm ignoring the elephant in the room by not mentioning AM (L) but I thought these side issues were interesting. N. Edited June 30, 2022 by Newbie Really poor grammar 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts