|
|
| Click for full size view |
|
|
| Click for full size view |
|
|
|
Click for full size view |
|
|
| Click for full size view |
|
|
| Click for full size view |
|
|
| Click for full size view |
There has been some interesting discussions taking place recently in the page comments area that is worthy of a separate forum topic. The main issue is which point do the planets orbit. Most but not all agree that the smaller planets orbit the Sun but when it comes to the Gas Giants there is some division. I think all the planets orbit the Sun but would be extremely happy if it can be proved that the Gas Giants orbit the SSB. Hopefully we can work through the details and come to some conclusions. The objective is to produce graphs, facts etc and not amble on with nothing more than rhetoric. It will be assumed that the JPL data is correct.
Howard and maybe Steve are thinking the Earth orbits the SSB. Lets take a look at a graph produced from JPL data that shows the Earth/Moon Barycentre (EMB) distance from the SUN and SSB. Click on the pic for a larger view.
Note: The referenced Wikipedia distance figures, Aphelion 152,098,232 km Perihelion 147,098,290 km
I can make the spreadsheet available if interested which shows a date range of 1800-2040. What can be seen is the EMB/Sun distance is very stable with fluctuations mainly due to the elliptical orbit. If you look closely there is a smaller fluctuation of about 15000 km's in the aphelion and perihelion distances caused by planet perturbations. The SSB distance is fluctuating over a much greater range, the SSB distance is influenced by the Gas giants and their influence on moving the Sun from the SSB. 1817 is a good point to look at the planet positions.
The position of N/U/J moving the Sun closer to the Earth assuming the Earth doesn't move (hypothetical), the position of the outer planets relative to the perihelion the controlling factor. The amount of variation on the SSB is far more extreme and if the Earth did orbit the SSB there would be many repercussions. The short term climate changes would be severe, the many indices that are recorded like isotopes, F10.7, flux, EUV, TSI, diameter size of the Sun etc etc would have to allow for this fluctuation along with the repositioning of satellites.
I think the solar diameter measurement might be good place to start and will see if I can find some papers on it, but the elephant in the room is that if the Earth has the SSB as an orbit axis point why is there so much fluctuation?
One of the downsides of running the Dupral system is the ability of contributors to delete their comments. Both Howard and steve's comments have disappeared, but I have restored them from the way back machine.
I produced this graph some time ago in a discussion with lgl of Carl's blog. Its taken from the same JPL data column as the earlier EMB graph. Neptune is around 4 billion km from the Sun, so the detail is not as clear. On initial viewing it suggests the SSB is the axis point of Neptune but I have not had time to do a thorough analysis.
The blue line is the Neptune/Sun distance and shows a modulation that matches the Jupiter cycle. The peaks line up with Jupiter when next to Neptune. The modulation looks to line up closely with the amount of movement the Sun moves from the SSB (about 1.5 million km). The SSB distance line looks very smooth, maybe too smooth? would we expect to see some modulation from planet perturbations? The AM graphs I think support a Sun centered Neptune, this might take some time to evaluate. Perhaps the remaining 3 planets might shed some more light.
Steve's point that the Jovians cant move with the Sun as they need to be fixed to move the Sun from the SSB is interesting but maybe not valid. Its the coming together of the planets that cause the movement, if they move in or out 1.5 million km the coming together of the mass still happens. Plus in Neptune's case we are looking at 1.5 million change to a 4 billion km distance.
Reflecting on gravity wells and barycenters...
The common "gravity well" image, derived from relativity, shows Sol sitting at the bottom of a deep dimple in a sheet of space/time, with the planets as spheres rolling around the angled sides of the dimple. I find the image useful, but there is definitely a misleading aspect to it.
We know from basic physics that in a two body system neither body would be "fixed" as the other orbits it. BOTH would orbit their common barycenter. The difference in mass between the two bodies could put that barycenter inside one of the bodies, but the fact is that neither would orbit the geometric center of the other. AM must be conserved, so they both have to move around a common barycenter. Adding up the AM of both (around this common barycenter) should give you a straight line.
So in the "gravity well" view of the solar system, with Sol at the bottom of a dimple... what dimple is Sol rolling around the angled sides of? Sol must be moving too for AM to be conserved. It can't roll around the sides of it's own gravity well, because if it approaches a side then that side necessarily moves away from it!
The image is just a metaphor, but for something that I normally find very useful (planetary orbits) is appears to be incredibly misleading in this instance.
Take, for example, the simple two body system. Let's assume masses where the larger body is Sol, and the other single mass just happens to equal the mass of all the planets. We know that the barycenter in this two body system will be outside the surface of Sol. For the "gravity well" image to work, the deepest dimple in the sheet MUST BE AT THAT BARYCENTER, not geometrically centered on Sol, for Sol to be visualized as orbiting the barycenter like a marble flung about the inside of a cone.
Hi Steve
No need to apologise, I thank you (and Geoff) for the constructive debate of the subject, that's how we develop ideas. I now think you have both managed to save my self and Fred Bailey a lot of wasted future effort but more importantly, refined and helped to define a more productive direction in the Solar Chord Science work..........How so?
Steve's link to the HORIZONS site was very illuminating and interesting. I have studied the methodology used, the frames of reference applied etc. and found nothing that suggested the results are contentious in relation to Bailey's work. I then compared the Ephemeris results with Bailey's work and to cut a long story short, after much debate, we came to the conclusion that Bailey's figures actually agree with the table and our 1% error is down to the lack of ability with the method used, to achieve the same level of accuracy. Hurrah, we now all agree on the size of the Chord Length changes.
This does not mean that the Solar Chord work is now dead in the water, far from it, the fundamental findings now have a sharper focus for future work.
There are two basics threads to Bailey's work, the first is the discovery of the pattern that enables sun spot cycle minima to be predetermined and the model giving a proposal for the calculation of the shape and amplitude of the sun spot count curves, this is unaffected by the chord length variation.
The second thread is the model for climate forecasting, the solar chord length is fundamental to this question but the reduction by 1% only means that the consequent wattage changes are now less variable than previously thought.
The main impetus for the climate model idea came from studying the tracks of the PCM plot (The CM of the Jovian planets combined). The shape and orientation of the plot, particularly the elongated balloon patterns, provide a striking illustration (once you realise why) that is in effect, an astronomical climate chart, how ?
Let's say we have a balloon that represents a 12 years solar orbit of the SSB, about 8 years will be concentrated in a given direction, time of the year and more distant from the SSB. This results in a concentrated change in the TSI for a REGION of the Earth, i.e. equatorial, or either polar region, the polar regions being the more important and dramatic changes to the climate. Others have said, 'Well the Earth orbits for 12 years and it all evens out'. This simplistic response is very untrue. The details and reasons are both subtle and complicated.
e.g. a constant solar forcing of a polar region has a very different affect in different seasons; a very warm summer will result in considerable ice cap melt, a cool summer has much less affect. A very warm winter has a relatively small affect, i.e. a rise from -50 to -40 degrees makes little difference to the surroundings but a very cold winter will increase the ice sheet.
Two particular climate periods were studied in detail, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. In each case 'balloons' were involved but even more significant was the finding that both these times there was a balloon followed very soon after by another balloon in the same position, moreover, the double balloons for each period are in the opposite quadrant of the reference frame, the deduction is, this is why one pair resulted in a warm period for the Northern hemisphere and the other, a cold period.
Further to this, the chord length variations were used to produce the complimentary wattage graphs for these and other periods, again when you see the graphs there is more visual evidence to support the above.
We still have some other issues to resolve, Re. orbiting the Sol/SSB, the way TSI is used in climate modelling etc.
I thank you both in helping us to make a positive step forward in this interesting and complicated subject.
Gravity wells is an interesting theory and should perhaps work both ways. The Sun would have its own planet induced gravity well tracking around the SSB. That well right now is in an usual place that it only goes around every 172 years?
I have plotted the SSB/Sun distances for the remainder of the Jovians, they look very different to Neptune. Both distance lines track together smoothly and can be seen to diverge at the peaks and troughs in Jupiter's case when the Sun moves away from the SSB. Saturn and Uranus show 2 lines tracking each other smoothly and close. Except for Neptune I cant see any convincing evidence either way, it might take another approach before this mystery is solved but the door is certainly open for a SSB axis point for Neptune. Maybe at a certain distance when there are no outer planets involved the rules change? Below is the distance graph for Uranus, click for full size.
"Steve's point that the Jovians can't move with the Sun as they need to be fixed to move the Sun from the SSB is interesting but maybe not valid."
Actually, now I understand why you commented (on the other topic thread) that the SSB is "fictional". Although all barycenters are "fictional", these calculated points tend to provide some useful information. In a simple 2 body system, for example, they show the proper point to use as the focus for an elliptical orbit.
But in the case of the SSB, we are talking about a center of mass for many massive bodies spread out across a huge distance. The calculation is still useful, but in terms of using it to pick a geometric focus for a simple elliptical orbit of any of the bodies... well, it just misleads. If anything, I would say the SSB is useful for showing the magnitude and direction of tidal forces acting upon Sol, but that's about it. And actually, Bailey's Planetary Center of Mass (PCM) would serve that purpose just as well. Regarding orbits, I only think the SSB is useful if you're looking to plot an orbit of something far outside of the solar system, and you need an average center of mass to plot against.
Even this site makes confusing comments about Sol's "orbit around the SSB". If we are talking colloquially, then sure you can speak of Sol orbiting the SSB, since Sol is "going around" the SSB. But the SSB is not a geometric focus for the orbit of Sol! Not in the way a 2 body barycenter would serve as a geometric focus. If anything, Sol is actually subject to an extremely winding path around and between many Sol-planet barycenters.
I would like to point you to some enlightening comments at Wikipedia's "Center of Mass" article, one made by Feynmann:
"The center of mass is sometimes called the center of gravity, for the reason that, in many cases, gravity may be considered uniform. ...In case the object is so large that the nonparallelism of the gravitational forces is significant, then the center where one must apply the balancing force is not simple to describe, and it departs slightly from the center of mass. That is why one must distinguish between the center of mass and the center of gravity."
and
"Even when considering tidal forces on planets, it is sufficient to use centers of mass to find the overall motion. In practice, for non-uniform fields, one simply does not speak of a "center of gravity"."
I think we can safely say that the entire solar system, as a whole, is certainly not a uniform field of gravity. In practicality we can pick a point near Sol for Jupiter and reasonably define an elliptical orbit around that point, but with all of the perturbations from the nearby gas giants... is that point really the focus of an ellipse? The defined ellipitical orbit is a nice approximation, but just like a barycenter it is a fiction, a mathematical construct. The reality is that Jupiter will not follow that elliptical orbit for long before you have to change the shape to another elliptical orbit with larger/smaller apsides (as you show in your Jovian orbit article). Accurate positioning requires treating the entire system as an n-body problem (which is what the JPL ephemerides do).
Overall, I gravitate (pun intended!) towards saying that "all planets orbit Sol", in that Sol's mass generates the largest vector among all the vectors of forces that are acting on a planet over the course of it's orbit. The SSB... well, there's no mass there to contribute a force vector. And if you "average", and apply a force vector pointing from the planet to the SSB, you'll be wrong. That only works if your gravity field is uniform, which our solar system clearly isn't.
Thanks Geoff, that would be very interesting, anything that might shed some light on the problem is welcome.
If I can make sense of it, I'll get back to you with my thoughts/questions.
Hi Geoff,
Fred and I have discussed this problem at great length and agreed that at the moment there is insufficicient evidence either way, to give definitive answers to various key questions. What follows is my interpretation of various issues.
I have a high degree of confidence that the JPL measurements of the shape and size of the Earth's orbit is correct but because I do not have sufficient details of how the table was produced, I am unable to decide whether the orbit JPL is showing, is around the Earth or the SSB. JPL is saying it is around the Earth but are they assuming that? or have they used a system to prove that is so? I have a suspicion that the AU may well be about the SSB, I have no proof of this either way at the moment. Whichever way it proves to be, it does not invalidate most of Bailey's findings but it will of course modify it and alter the scale of the Solar forcing claimed but not the principal that the Solar energy is not evenly distributed but highly regional in nature, more so than just the accepted seasonal variations.
In one of your early blogs you approached an astronomer who would not commit on this very question. In other parts of your blog you state that persons you regard as more knowledgeable than yourself, claim that only the Jovian planets orbit the SSB. I have seen no evidence of any logical or workable maths to justify this.
Bailey has produced the PCM track on which much of his findings is based, by using the published orbital data of the Jovian planets to take moments about the SSB, the consequent Sun-SSB dimensions appear to agree with other published findings e.g. Landsheight, Jose etc. but where Bailey has then gone i.e. taking into account the third dimension, is something new and has led to Bailey to believe that until proven otherwise, the Earth - Sun Chord Length must be ever changing but predictable, also because of the maths and logic used, then the Earth is deemed to orbit the SSB.
I am aware that future studies may prove Bailey wrong in some aspects but it may also prove some things to be correct. I have also stated that the 1% difference in some dimensions given could be down to innaccurate methods but I also believe that this might be right, it largely depends upon the orbit question.
I am quite prepared to entertain the idea that if the Earth orbits the Sun, then let's explore that avenue and see if we can up with some convincing data or other insights e.g. correlation with changing Z values. I noticed that some satellite instrumentation can detect the change in Sun spot polarity, I wonder how this correlates with Bailey's change of sign of acceleration/deceleration on the chosen plane of reference? There are many possibilites yet to explore.
I can show you other aspects of the SCS work that convinces me that there is far too much correlation between the findings and historic data to be just coincidence alone, so I am trying to find out why some things are seemingly at odds with each other.
Bailey is open minded about the above but until he has positive prove either way, intends to continue with the dedicated web site reflecting the books and be prepared to modify both in the light of any new provable evidence.
The whole question of orbital mechanics is very unsettled and undefined at the moment, making it difficult make new discoveries. What is really needed, is a panel with experts from each field, to fully debate this subject then carry out specific experiments to verify any conclusions drawn from the debate.
"I have a high degree of confidence that the JPL measurements of the shape and size of the Earth's orbit is correct but because I do not have sufficient details of how the table was produced, I am unable to decide whether the orbit JPL is showing, is around the Earth or the SSB. JPL is saying it is around the Earth [sic] but are they assuming that? or have they used a system to prove that is so?"
JPL's data does not say, directly, that "the Earth orbits the sun". The JPL data states the coordinates and velocities of the observed solar system bodies. From that data, eccentricity of orbits around particular points can be derived, but that is a calculation, not data. The Earth-Sol distance is calculated from the same data as the Earth-Jupiter and Sol-Jupiter distances. To disagree with JPL's Earth-Sol distance calculation, you have to also disagree with either their Sol-Jupiter or Earth-Jupiter calculation, because either Earth or Sol must be in a different place.
Regarding the methods, the mechanics of an n-body system are defined, and the general shape of the solar system is known, but historically the scale was a problem. The coordinates of the solar system bodies can be measured in relation to Earth, which defines the positions and velocities of the bodies, but the distance is problematic. The transit of Venus allowed a good approximation, but until the advent of radar the scale was still questionable. Radar measurements of the Earth-Venus distance established the scale of these orbits in relation to each other, and thus the scale of the solar system as a whole.
So you could state that the method was generally "measure the coordinates of the bodies over time, map the (approximate) orbits in relation to each other, measure the Earth-Venus distance via radar, establish the scale of the system, refine the definitions of the system, compare the refined definition to new coordinate measurements".
"In one of your early blogs you approached an astronomer who would not commit on this very question. In other parts of your blog you state that persons you regard as more knowledgeable than yourself, claim that only the Jovian planets orbit the SSB. I have seen no evidence of any logical or workable maths to justify this."
This goes to my last post addressed to Geoff, regarding orbits and defining what orbits what. To say something orbits something else is a matter of definition, and I think we are (unnecessarily) getting hung up on the term "orbit". The data regarding the masses, coordinates and velocities is given - there is no mystery on these values. Given the existing known masses and objects, we have the math that describes the solar system to a high degree of accuracy for several thousand years. If we want to determine if an orbit exists for Jupiter around Sol, or the SSB, we have to come up with a precise mathematical definition of what we mean by "orbit", then we compare it to the model. The mystery appears to be in defining "orbit", and at this point I'm wondering "why do we even care?" Will defining "orbit" one way or another change the JPL ephemerides? We want to define things like mass, coordinates, velocity, changes in oblateness... any orbit (given a tight, mathematical definition) will then be a consequence of the dynamics of the n-body system and our chosen definition for "orbit".
We know that in a two body Sol-Earth system, both Earth and Sol would orbit a common barycenter, and this common barycenter would be relatively close to the center of Sol's mass.
If Earth were in a uniform gravitational field of dark matter, in which the expanse and mass of dark matter matched the expanse and mass of the solar system, we know that in this uniform field Earth would orbit the SSB, as the center of mass and center of gravity would coincide.
Our solar system is not uniform, but neither is it an ideal two body system. If we have to choose a focus for an elliptical orbit then it's going to be somewhere between the Sol-Earth barycenter and the SSB. The non uniformity puts the bulk of the solar system's mass in Sol, and since Earth is relatively close to Sol the focus of orbit is going to end up much, much closer to the Sol-Earth barycenter than the SSB. For Jupiter the case is slightly different. The focus will end up somewhere between the Sol-Jupiter barycenter and the SSB, but since the field of gravity acting on Jupiter is much more non-uniform (closer proximity to larger point masses), the focus of Jupiter's orbit will (relatively speaking) be farther from the Sol-Jupiter barycenter. And then as we get completely outside of the solar system, the field of gravity acting on one of these distant objects could be approximated as nearly uniform, so these distant objects will have their orbits increasingly closer to the SSB as we get farther away. Eventually for these objects, we simply approximate the solar system as a point centered at the SSB.
"Bailey has produced the PCM track on which much of his findings is based, by using the published orbital data of the Jovian planets to take moments about the SSB, the consequent Sun-SSB dimensions appear to agree with other published findings e.g. Landsheight, Jose etc. ..."
I take this to mean that you agree with the JPL ephemerides data regarding the coordinates of the major planets in relation to Sol and the SSB. Since these coordinates were determined from Earth, then the JPL ephemerides must have Earth's coordinates in relation to the major planets correct as well, right? So what coordinates given by the JPL ephemerides is claimed to be wrong by Solar Chord Theory? I don't see how Solar Chord Theory can agree with the JPL ephemerides on every coordinate except Earth's.
"The whole question of orbital mechanics is very unsettled and undefined at the moment, making it difficult make new discoveries. What is really needed, is a panel with experts from each field, to fully debate this subject then carry out specific experiments to verify any conclusions drawn from the debate."
There isn't an open question I know of regarding "orbital mechanics", per se. The theory of relativity sealed the deal and solved the question of Mercury's odd orbit, and that was the last "big question" in solar system mechanics.
The open questions are in the higher math. With known masses, positions and velocities (and smaller intricacies such as changes in oblateness) the mechanics define an n-body system. The mechanics of this system are known. The problem lies in converting the equations of that n-body system into a single differentiable equation, or at least a smaller list of equations that are closer to that single ideal. You can always plug your variables into a simulation, if you have the time and computing power, but the dream is a compact system of equations where we know we can plug in a far future time T and get all of the positions and velocities to a high degree of accuracy with a minimal number of calculations.
Running a simulation to time T is problematic. First, you have to wait for the simulation to calculate all of the intervening steps that you don't care about. If you want the data at time T = ten years, you'll calculate the intervening 9.999 years whether you want them or not. And then there's the problem of the time step. You have to pick an interval for your simulation, such as a step every half second, second, 30 seconds, minute, hour... and the bigger your step, the more inaccurate your simulation becomes with every step! Gravity is acting continuously, so the true answer requires an infinitesimal interval. And that is why the ideal is a single differentiable equation - it is continuous. The n-body problem is a math problem, not a mechanics problem.
I still think your father discovered some amazing statistics, such as the relationship between Sol-SSB and solar cycle lengths (the 360-270 relationship). But a highly variable Sol-Earth distance just doesn't add up.
Hi Geoff
I have been looking at your opening piece on this new thread and I don't understand the following statement, "The postilion of N/U/J moving the Sun closer and further to the Earth assuming the Earth doesn't move," Could you please explain what the Sun is moving closer to? The SSB? The Earth? as you could interpret this either way.
Thanks Geoff,
I thought that you were saying that the position of N/U/J means that Sol would move closer to the SSB and further from the Earth (if assuming the Earth does not move with the Sun).
I just wanted to check that is what you are saying, before replying to you, which I will do shortly.
Hi Geoff,
If we are to continue this thread, then we need to have at least some agreement on key issues of your opening statements or I can not see how we can ever achieve anything, other than a debate with pointless rhetoric.
My view regarding your graphed JPL data, purporting to show the EMB distance from the Sun and SSB is this;
Merely graphing the data does not ‘prove’ it is correct, it’s just showing the same thing in a different form. If the way the data set has been compiled is wrong, then the graph is also wrong.
I looked at the site you suggested and I also found the excellent US Naval Portal site, but neither gave an answer to the question of; Does the Earth orbit the SSB or Sun?
Both sites stated that all references were based upon a Cartesian (Rectangular) frame of reference centred upon the SSB.
The US Naval Portal gives a very detailed account of the methods used and stated the following about JPL data sets;
“The Jet Propulsion Laboratory DE405/LE405 planetary and lunar ephemerides (usually just referred to as DE405) have been aligned to the ICRS. These ephemerides provide the positions and velocities of the nine major planets and the Moon with respect to the solar system barycenter, in rectangular coordinates. The data is represented in Chebyshev series form and Fortran subroutines are provided to read and evaluate the series for any date and time. DE405 spans the years 1600 to 2200; a long version, DE406, spans the years -3000 to +3000 with lower precision.”
So I am none the wiser at the moment!!
Moving on to your Solar system plot of 1817. For the moment let’s forget about which point the Earth orbits.
Your logic is saying, that the more of the Jovian planets there are together on one side of the SSB, then the closer the Sun is ‘pulled’ towards the SSB on the opposite side, I think I can see where you’re coming from but;
I’m sorry to say Geoff that this is completely wrong and you are misleading the public, I hasten to add that this a ’completely honest mistake’ on your part.
The Sun must move AWAY from the SSB to counter balance the combined moments of the Jovian’s. I will now use the JPL data set and other data, to prove that this is the case.
According to your logic, with 3 out of the 4 Jovian’s grouped together, then the Sun would be quite close to the SSB.
The JPL data gives these figures for the 1817 plot;
Earth to SSB = 148.500 x 106 km
Earth to Sun = 147.343 x 106 km
Therefore Sun to SSB = 1.157 x 106 km
Straight away this does not fit with your proposal, this distance is 2/3 of the maximum possible Solar displacement, i.e. in line with what I am saying.
What is the maximum possible Solar displacement?
Planetary Leverages (moments)
Mass kg x 106 km = Moment kg km
Jupiter 1.90 x 1027 x 778.34 14.79 x 1035
Saturn 5.68 x 1026 x 1427.01 8.11 x 1035
Uranus 8.66 x 1025 x 2869.6 2.49 x 1035
Neptune 1.02 x 1026 x 4496.7 4.62 x 1035
Total = 30.01 x 1035 kg km
Note: The combined moments of N/U/S almost equal Jupiter’s moment
Mass of Sun x Distance X = Sum of Planetary moments
Therefore 2 x 1030 kg x Distance X = 30.01 x 1035 kg km
Therefore X = 30.01 x 1035 / 2 x 1030 = 1.5 x 106 km
Or put another way, just over a 2 Radii shift of the Sun
Consider this plot for 13th December 1485;
Now all the Jovian’s are closely grouped.
JPL data gives these figures;
Earth to SSB = 148.548 x 106 km
Earth to Sun = 147.074 x 106 km
Therefore Sun to SSB = 1.474 x 106 km
Very nearly maximum Solar displacement, which is exactly what I would expect to find.
Now if you look up the plot for the 2169, you will find that Jupiter is one side with N/U/S on the opposing side of the SSB, remember I noted above that the combined moments of N/U/S almost equal the moment of Jupiter.
So where would one expect the Sun to be?
Almost over the SSB?
JPL site gives these figures;
Earth to SSB = 147.462 x 106 km
Earth to Sun = 147.434 x 106 km
Therefore Sun to SSB = 0.028 x 106 km or 28,000 km,
i.e. Virtually over the SSB.
When one sees planetary positions relative to the SSB you have to remember several points;
The SSB is a mathematical point that represents the Centre of Gravity of every particle of mass within the Solar system and according to Newton, ultimately, everything orbits that point.
This means that this point, has the mathematical value of the combined mass, i.e. something more than 2 x 1030 kg, the mass of the Sun plus a bit more (i.e. everything else).
According to Newton, for a balanced system, if we freeze frame the action at any point in time and take moments about the SSB, then they will always resolve to zero.
So what we have is, a Force Vector Diagram, which is why we take moments about the SSB.
This is why, when the Jovian masses are grouped together, the Sun has to move away from the SSB, to counter balance their combined moments.
To understand orbital mechanics one must try to visualise in your minds eye, what is going on in three dimensions.
If none of the solar masses had any velocity, then they would simply coalesce into a single entity, but, because they all have tremendous galactic velocity, about 250 km per second, then when they are attracted to each other by gravity, they begin to spin on their axis and rotate about the SSB thereby creating AM about the SSB. This results in a series of very long, drawn out, spiral paths.
When you are looking at the two dimensional elliptical orbits, they do not exist in reality, what actually exists are the ever changing three dimensional spiral paths.
The elliptical shape comes about because of the point of view of the solar system movement, so looking end on, in the direction of travel of the whole group, either from in front or behind, you see an elliptical movement but the bodies are either moving towards you or away from you, at the same time, hence the spiral.
The SSB is the only point that is moving in a straight (almost) line and at constant galactic orbital velocity. All the bodies orbiting this point NEVER point in the direction of travel of the SSB and also experience a change in their velocity, because they are orbiting the SSB. This means that if gravity were to suddenly disappear, NOTHING would fly off in the original direction of the SSB.
When you think about the various forces balancing each other out, remember to consider their relative energy levels.
Yes it takes tremendous energy to make the Sun’s AM move through 180 degrees in less than three years, as it sometimes does, but to make even a modest rapid change of galactic orbital velocity, either acceleration or deceleration, takes far more energy.
So to sum up Geoff, I am not offended when you say that the Solar Chords web site is misleading the public or even when you stated: “are you going to continue what seems to be a marketing exercise”.
Solar Chord Science is based on sound Newtonian principles and the remarkably accurate correlations with historic climate changes and sedimentary data.
For these reasons I have no intention or need to modify our position, I fully expect science to (eventually) validate SCS, maybe with a few minor tweaks.
There is some serious confusion going on. I found the head post easy to understand. Geoff stated,"The position of N/U/J moving the Sun closer to the Earth assuming the Earth doesn't move (hypothetical)...". The phrase "sun closer to Earth" is as plain as day - I don't see how anyone could wonder whether it means closer to "Earth" or "SSB". And he clearly denoted it as "hypothetical", meaning "if Solar Chord Theory be true". He was outlining a situation in which the line of conjunction is N/U/J - SSB - Sol - Earth. So if SCT is true, it would be a situation where the sun is moving closer to the Earth. If not true, then it means the calculated point which is the SSB moved further from the Earth (for 1/2 the year, and for the other half the line would be N/U/J - Earth - SSB - Sol).
Geoff's comment that "the opening graph puts this argument to bed" refers to the fact that the EMB-SSB distance is shown to be the distance subject to the widest fluctuations from year to year.
Steve
It does make sense now that he has completely re-written it, see my previous two postings to the last, where you will see the original quote that was cut and pasted into position, no confusion on my part.
Well I do apologize for not having checked the Google cache of this page before commenting on the head post. I didn't realize it had been edited for clarification. (Google cache)
But the original wording still states that he is talking about a situation where N/U/J moves the Sun closer/further from Earth (SCT), not the SSB closer/further from Earth (JPL). In the overall context of the post I thought it was easily understood as a test of SCT vs JPL, not a statement of fact.
I suggest a very basic test of SCT vs JPL, using good old fashioned Newtonian mechanics (no need to get Einstein involved). Take an n-body simulation program and plug in your starting positions and trajectories for all of the solar system bodies, then run the simulation. Pick a starting point where SCT vs JPL would initially give almost identical results, such as 1811. Run the simulation out for a decade or so. With basic Newtonian mechanics simulated, does the end result match SCT or JPL predictions?
I recommend Universe Sandbox as a simulation. It uses JPL ephemerides to calculate starting positions for whatever time point you initially pick, before going into simulation mode. So comparing SCT vs JPL would be as simple as picking a date in 1811 and pressing "Go". Notice that in the FAQ it clarifies that the larger your time step, the more inaccurate the simulation becomes. A time step of 2 minutes or less is recommended for high accuracy.
It's time to move on from pointless discussion about Earth's orbit axis point. The data is clear in this area and attempting to challenge it is similar to saying the Earth is flat. When it comes to the outer planets the data is not so clear. I plotted the difference between the Neptune/SSB distance and the Neptune/Sun distance.
The familiar power wave that I think drives solar cycle modulation is evident and as will be seen with Jupiter the distance difference graphs are closely linked to angular momentum. The interesting numbers are the amount of fluctuation which is around the same distance the Sun travels from the SSB (1.5 million kilometers), the timing also lines up. I think there can be two reasons for this fluctuation, one being Neptune orbits the SSB or two the Neptune orbit is being perturbed by a similar distance to the Sun/SSB distance. I played around with the velocity figures trying to determine the amount of planet perturbation of the Neptune orbit, but the exercise exceeded my basic maths skills.
I did the same exercise with Jupiter which turned out a remarkable result. I went back further and began the plot at 1600AD.
The outcome almost matches the solar AM graph made famous by Carl Smith but there is extra detail seen at places like 1755 and 1935. This extra detail I have also observed when I plotted the total planet AM during the Spin Orbit Coupling Project. Jupiter when it comes to solar system AM is the clear winner, so this graph might be a useful addition to the AM knowledge pool.
Once again the fluctuations are in the 1.5 million km range but notably there is almost no negative values showing the Sun swings off Jupiter as the main solar system counter balance with the influence of the remaining Gas Giants obvious.
"It's time to move on from pointless discussion about Earth's orbit axis point."
That's fine by me. My suggestion to use an n-body simulation was for Howard. I figured it was the easiest way for him to do his own verification of "What would Newton calculate?"
To clarify your graphs above... the planet-Sol distance is being subracted from the planet-SSB distance, correct? So a positive value means that the SSB is between Sol and the planet.
I was under the impression that the SSB is always either between Sol and Jupiter or equidistant, on account of Jupiter's mass contributing so much to the SSB calculation. But it looks like there are occasions on the 178 year interval where enough mass lines up on the other side that Sol comes ever so slightly between the SSB and Jupiter.
Can you define mathmatically what would be a conclusive "orbit about the SSB" for an 8+ body system? I'm still not sure what the point is. Are you saying that if we have a definitive yes/no answer, that someone can then better integrate the equations of motion and arrive at more accurate equations used for the JPL ephemeris, such as these Swiss chaps claim to have done?
Thanks steve for the link to the Universe Sandbox, its a nice piece of software although I am not sure I have the hardware to run it properly. I have to reduce my screen size to stop it blanking out.
To clarify your graphs above... the planet-Sol distance is being subtracted from the planet-SSB distance, correct? So a positive value means that the SSB is between Sol and the planet.
No, I am subtracting the planet/SSB distance from the planet/Sun distance, but yes a positive value means the SSB is between Sol and the planet.
I was under the impression that the SSB is always either between Sol and Jupiter or equidistant, on account of Jupiter's mass contributing so much to the SSB calculation. But it looks like there are occasions on the 178 year interval where enough mass lines up on the other side that Sol comes ever so slightly between the SSB and Jupiter.
Yes, and this is what Landscheidt described as zero crossings which he used to predict grand minimia. Zero crossings happen near the time of grand minima as they require Uranus & Neptune to be together, but thanks to Carl's graph today we can see the AM perturbations are where the action is.
The swiss ephemeris looks interesting as it may allow AM graphs in the future to cover 10,800 yrs instead of the 6000 yrs covered by DE405/406. This would be useful for comparing AMP events further back in the Holocene. We just need it be be made public and accessible like JPL. JPL claim 25 metre accuracy for the outer planets which is backed up by observations so I am of the opinion the axis point is hidden in the data. In the background if my memory serves me correctly there is a planet perturbations program that is part of DE405/406 that is constantly being refined by observations. But Neptune is a long way away and I have noticed from reading old papers that ephemeris files created before DE405 lacked sufficient accuracy for the outer planets. I am at a loss why the original Neptune distance graph shows the 13 year 1.5 million km modulation while Uranus and Saturn do not.
I referenced this paper HERE to Howard that quantifies the JPL data but think it bears repeating here, this excerpt in particular gives me some confidence:
Many thanks go to Carl's brother Dave for providing the Domain, Server and Software.
Just when I was about to say
Just when I was about to say "you don't need to post a graph on my account!" But thanks anyway - it's much easier on the eyes than the string of text output I was sifting through at lunch today. And I like that you graphed the EMB (Earth is all I was able to get my hands on with my limited skills).
I managed to figure out how to do this research on my own - no data download needed. I found out that JPL has an online web application called HORIZONS (http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi). Anyone can quickly get JPL Sol-Earth or SSB-Earth distances by entering the following parameters:
Ephemeris Type => vectors
Target Body => Earth (geocenter)
Coodinate Origin => "@0" for SSB, or "@sun" for Sol
Table Settings => pick either of quantities codes 3, 4 or 6 to output range (among other data)
Of course, pick a time range and suitable interval. I found that 6 calendar month intervals was particularly easy to follow when your eyeballing it on your lunch break.
And sorry Howard, I have to agree with Geoff. The JPL data simply doesn't show the "solar chord" variations that your father has calculated. I am absolutely a layman in this field, but I have my reasons to trust the JPL ephemeris. It has nothing to do with satellites - I have no data or industry knowledge to know whether or not they are constantly making adjustments to account for JPL ephemeris errors. My trust in the JPL ephemeris is for a simple reason that goes back long before NASA was a blink in anyone's eye. The transit of Venus.
We are lucky enough to have lived through a recent transit, in 2004. You, or your father, would have to explain how the JPL ephemeris has Sol's location misplaced by the amount that the Solar Chord Theory requires, yet thousands of astronomers were able to witness the 2004 transit of Venus, using "accepted data", without an uprising stating "the timing was off!" Note that participants in the VT-2004 project measured the AU to be within 0.007% of the accepted value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus,_2004).
I still think that Fred Bailey found some amazing statistical correlations while devising Solar Chord Theory, but statistics only imply causation. If the solar chord does not vary as the theory requires, then he needs to come up with a different method of causation.
What I don't understand, going back to the comments in the other article, is how Semi's EMB-SSB AM graph showed such a clear pattern, one I would expect for an object in an elliptical orbit (in his graph, it looked to be fluctuating between elliptical, nearly circular, and back to elliptical), but his EMB-Sol AM graph did not. What is it about AM that I'm not understanding?
The graph above is a big help for visualizing what is going on. The two datasets should practically overlap in those years when Sol is centered on the SSB, as the EMB will remain equidistant from both points (would look like 1811 in the graph). If the SSB is closer to the perihelion than Sol, the SSB will be alternately closer and further from Earth than Sol in that year (would look like 1859 in the graph). And for those years where the purple dataset is squeezed down to smaller than the blue dataset (1817), the SSB is closer to the aphelion than Sol.