Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by sculptor, Mar 13, 2016.
angular momentum influence on solar output
anyone up on this?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I believe there is in literature change in African Sahara with change in angle , the angle changes slowly and would affect heat on different parallels from the equator, is I just don't have a site.
I'm not with this, I'm afraid. Is there an issue here? Can you describe it a bit more?
Has to do with planetary gravitational forces effecting the solar output.
According to the theory:
When Saturn is counterbalanced by Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus in narrow bands we should get grand minima.
Work by Leif Svalgaard
If when the giants counter each other we have minima:
What happens when they align?
Thanks for the links. However I am still rather mystified by the references to "angular momentum". What angular momentum is being referred to and by what mechanism is it proposed that solar activity (sunspots and flares) is affected?
And, since angular momentum is conserved, how is it said to be changed due to the planetary alignments that this person seems to be talking about?
Is this guy serious , or is he a nutter of some sort? I notice he does not know the difference between a full stop and a comma, which although not conclusive, can be reason to suspect nutterhood.
My take is, if you look at the graphs that he put up there is almost no correlation at all. Which is just weird that he shows data that essentially refutes his point!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The attempts to deny global warming seem to be getting pretty desperate!
Ah, is that what this is all about? I'd never have guessed.
Good thing too:
Not one of the solar physicists I've mentioned has denied "global warming".
That ain't what they're studying. (and, most likely, not even why)
back to landscheidt
I remain somewhat puzzled about the quantifiable connection to angular momentum.
Given that there are tides on the sun. A connection could be involved with competing delayed gravitational drag, much like our tides being governed by both the moon and sun, but slightly delayed while following the moon.
How much of a pull on the sun does saturn have? How high of a solar tide could it create all by it's self?--How much for: Jupiter? Neptune? Uranus?
There is a delay between the phases of the moon and their effect on the tide. Springs and neaps in the North Sea, for example, are two days behind the new/full moon and first/third quarter moon. The earth/moon center of gravity is constantly on the move. Imagine how complicated it could get if the earth had 9 moons of varying mass at varying distances with varying orbital speeds.
The charts are a tad confusing.(though not wholly unintelligible)Look for: When 14c is low, solar output is high, when solar output is low, 14c is high--so too 10Be(goes back further)
Landscheidt is dead, so asking him is moot.
There is much more in the genre of looking into the gravitational effect of the planets in this solar system.
If you once acknowledge a gravitational interaction between the planets and the planets, and the planets and the sun, looking for cumulative influences seems to follow logically.
Quantifying said influences remains a work in progress?
I once took a graduate seminar on Bateson's "an ecology of mind". Later, I realized that the reason the professor had thrown the seminar was because he did not understand Bateson. (not even a little bit)
(what goes round comes round-------ergo my queries here)(is that cloud sourcing?)
But what does angular momentum have to do with any of this?
If he had hypothesised tidal effects on the sun from the major planets, that might have been understandable. But he doesn't mention tidal effects at all, does he?
I don't think he understands what angular momentum is,
I don't think he knows the difference between a comma and a full stop,
I see he has used a nutter's colour scheme for his website,
and now, my nutcase detector is in the red zone because, due to my suspicions, I've looked him up on Wiki, where he is described as an author, astrologer [sic] and amateur climatologist.
I do not think this gentleman need detain us further.
Hocus pocus nonsense. Consider the source. For some reason they seem to be saying changes in planetary positions can effect the Suns rotation parameter. Hocus pocus. Ye olde based on action at a distance the gravity of the aligned planets somehow effects the local rotation parameter of the sun. They're changing dynamics that effect the rotation rate of different sections of the sun but not from action at a distance gravitational effects.
Landscheidt is dead. He did not set up the website. The fellow who set it up is also dead.
(In Landscheidt's defense, he did predict the likely diminishment of solar activity likely leading to grand minimum (following on the work of Eddy and John Gribbin) after the 1990 maximum 10 years before the peak. Few astrophysicists would do that.
It does seem that most people in the field think his prediction was accurate.)
But, for now:
Forget Landscheidt: (I came to that site following other papers----------------I most likely, should not have started this thread there.)(in my defense, you all found it somewhat incomprehensible also-true?)
Let us consider:
Angular momentum of a body moving in an elliptical orbit. The orbiting body will carve out a larger arc on the surface of the body around which it is orbiting at pericenter where it also has the strongest gravitational force.
Then, if that orbiting body is creating tides on the surface of the body around which it is orbiting, the power and speed of those tides will be greater during the orbiting body's transit through pericenter/ perihelion.
By extrapolation, a more active solar surface(tides) will lead to more acivity as seen in sunspots.
And, there via the speed of carving out the arc, we have the effect of angular momentum.
Now, let us consider
The planets gravitational forces acting on the sun have a dual effect.
1) they are instrumental in influencing the sun's motion around the barycenter of the solar system. Which affects the whole body of the sun.
2) they create tides on the surface of the sun.
2 effects for one motion-------Therein lies the confusion.
Have you read Jose's paper? "Sun's motion and sunspots"
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Astronomy and Astrophysics : “Is there a planetary influence on solar activity?” Abreu et al. 22nd October, 2012.
Somewhere in here, we'd need to address harmonics----------------(way beyond my scope)
It seems that while jupiter has the greatest gravitational effect on the sun's activity around the baricenter, followed by venus earth and saturn, the solar tides are primarily governed by Jupiter, venus, earth and mercury(I told you this is complicated.)
looking for clarification and/or discussion here.
Am I expecting too much?
Ignore the source
Look to the science.
"Don't throw the baby out with the bath water"
What science? Do you expect anyone to take seriously graphs produced by an astrologer?
But at least the guy had a suitable name. In the NE of England it would be spelt "Landshite". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm up for idle and careless chitchat: Lessee, if I'm reading the various Wiki tables correctly, adding Jupiter and Saturn together we get about 33,500 Lunar masses. Putting that mass at Jupiter's distance from Sol we put it at a bit over 2000 Lunar distances from Terra. If I did it right that works out to a Solar tidal pull from an aligned Jupiter and Saturn of about .008 of the Terran tidal pull from Luna. Maximum (everything rounded to larger tidal).
The Sun is a ball of gas. So we would guesstimate the tidal influence would compare with the tidal influence on Terra's atmosphere. So a thumbnail guess would be that the influence of an aligned Jupiter and Saturn at the "surface" of Sol (the level at which the gas pressure averages one bar) would be a little less than the 1% of the tidal influence of Luna on the barometric pressure of Terra's atmosphere.
So the effect of Jupiter and Saturn (>90% of the total planetary mass available) on a sunspot would be a little less than 1% of the effect of the moon on a hurricane.
Not zero, then.
A complicating factor is that the gravitational pull of Sol at that level is about 25 times Terra. Also, Mercury although much smaller and quicker to pass by is much closer. But I'm not dedicated enough to include that. Maybe somebody who knows what they are doing can step in and fix these numbers?
Jeeezzzzzzzzzzz dad, didn't I just tell you to forget about Landscheidt?!
But first: do not dismiss the fact that the first part of the definition of astrology is " A study of the positions and relationships of the sun, moon, stars, and planets..."
You seem to be really hung up on that word.
Let us say that you are going to Chicago----you could come from the north pole---you could come from the south pole---you could come from Japan-----you could come from France----you could come from almost anywhere on the surface of this planet---------what really matters is that you came to Chicago........
Have you ever read Bateson's an ecology of mind? If you had tried, you'd understand the reference!
FORGET ABOUT LANDSCHEIDT! (for now) Seriously--if knowledge is your goal, you need a different path.
For a foundation:
Start with John Gribbin.
Then John Eddy.
Then Jose.(above quoted)
Then Roy Martin
Then David Archibald(above quoted)
Most likely, these guys will be more to your liking?
If knowledge is your goal: Do yourself a favor and FORGET ABOUT LANDSCHEIDT! (for now)
if you ain't part of the solution you're part of the precipitate
You might benefit from reading Nicola Scafetta:
"Numerous empirical evidences suggest that planetary tides may influence solar activity. In particular, it has been shown that: (1) the well-known 11-year Schwabe sunspot number cycle is constrained between the spring tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn, 9.93 year, and the tidal orbital period of Jupiter, 11.86 year, and a model based on these cycles can reconstruct solar dynamics at multiple time scales (Scafetta, in press); (2) a measure of the alignment of Venus, Earth and Jupiter reveals quasi 11.07-year cycles that are well correlated to the 11-year Schwabe solar cycles; and (3) there exists a 11.08 year cyclical recurrence"
I don't think he's got the whole story.......................?
Good place to start?
(for today-I'm back to reading Emiliani-----------no connection to the topic at hand?)
OK. Can we now agree , in deference to the title of this thread, that angular momentum, being conserved in the course of planetary motion, has no effect on solar output?
But that, instead, there is a hypothesis that, conceivably, there may be tidal effects on the sun, due to the periodic alignment of the large planets? Well yes, I don't see why not, in principle. What data do you have in support of that hypothesis, from reputable sources?
Sure there's tidal effects but they're minuscule. The tidal effects associated with gravitational waves emmited from distant planets are infinitesimal. As the gravitational waves reach the sun they contribute to the sun local spacetime curvature, gravity. In some infinitesimal way they contribute to determining the Suns natural path through the Galaxy. The effects on the Suns rotation parameter, which can vary due to local dynamics occurring in the Suns environment, is got to be nil or if it's not nil it should be accounted for as a component of the physics describing our star. Instead it's based on conservation of angular momentum. None of which is sacrificed to the position of distant planets.
Separate names with a comma.