Solar Cycle cause

[paddoboy]

Please elaborate on how that would be "fairly easy to show". Yes, if the star's light was observed visibly then we would certainly have spotted a star that seems to orbit us. However, if it is not visible to us due to its mass, then it is quite reasonable that it could go unnoticed over time, without us actively looking for it. There is NO REASON to believe what you are saying besides your fallible assumptions.

No, the onus is on you to show how and why with reputable data, as to how solar cycles contribute to this fairy tale 22 year orbit.
And while you are at it, write to NASA and ESA and other scientific concerns and tell them how useless their technical instruments are.

You know nothing, Jon Snow.

I know my limitations certainly.....
I respect my peers and the scientific giants of times past.....
I know you are a fraud.....

And that's why the scientific method and peer review offend you somewhat.
It's there to expose frauds such as yourself.

 

[paddoboy]

What we do know:
The Sun does have two orbits. The main orbit, around the center of mass of the MW galaxy's BH, just as all the other stellar systems also follow.
The Sun also orbits about the centre of mass of the solar system, itself. Where is that center of mass? Inside the actual bulk that makes up the Sun itself! A tiny unnoticable orbit, but one which does exist.

Other stellar systems are different in at least 50% of cases. They in general are in binary and trinary stellar groupings, and even quadruple groupings with consequently a complicated centre of mass associated with each groupings.
The Centauri system is thought to be a trinary, with Alpha A and Alpha B in a 80 year orbit around a common center of mass, and the third Proxima with a possible orbital period of 500,000 years.

Speculative Stuff:
Any speculated 22 year orbit of the Sun around anything else is just unsupported dribble, just as is the still often heard hypothesis of some hidden companion of the Sun, directly on the other side or out among the Oort cloud.
Although the latter was dreamed up to explain the perturbations in the orbits of outer comets, that send them hurtling inwards, the former is just not needed in any sense what so ever.

 

[sscully]

What we do know:
The Sun does have two orbits. The main orbit, around the center of mass of the MW galaxy's BH, just as all the other stellar systems also follow.
The Sun also orbits about the centre of mass of the solar system, itself. Where is that center of mass? Inside the actual bulk that makes up the Sun itself! A tiny unnoticable orbit, but one which does exist.

The first is due to the center of the Milky Way and the second is due to the Solar System, these are obvious orbits. That doesn't mean we KNOW THE SUN'S PRECISE MOTIONS EXACTLY, which seems to be the foolish assumption you are trying to provide support for.

Other stellar systems are different in at least 50% of cases. They in general are in binary and trinary stellar groupings, and even quadruple groupings with consequently a complicated centre of mass associated with each groupings.
The Centauri system is thought to be a trinary, with Alpha A and Alpha B in a 80 year orbit around a common center of mass, and the third Proxima with a possible orbital period of 500,000 years.

...so other stars provide support for stars orbiting stars? Ok....Thanks for appreciating that is a reality. You even went so far as to show evidence of a system that orbits ON THE SAME ORDER OF MAGNITUDE. But let's ignore the significance of that, since we ignore everything else.

Speculative Stuff:
Any speculated 22 year orbit of the Sun around anything else is just unsupported dribble, just as is the still often heard hypothesis of some hidden companion of the Sun, directly on the other side or out among the Oort cloud.
Although the latter was dreamed up to explain the perturbations in the orbits of outer comets, that send them hurtling inwards, the former is just not needed in any sense what so ever.

"unsupported dribble"--simply because you don't understand the support doesn't mean it is unsupported. Perhaps you should consider this "often heard hypothesis" of "some hidden companion" finds EVIDENCE in the solar cycles. Or continue to assume you, and the scientific community as a whole (which you unequivocally do not represent), knows everything.

 

[paddoboy]

The first is due to the center of the Milky Way and the second is due to the Solar System, these are obvious orbits. That doesn't mean we KNOW THE SUN'S PRECISE MOTIONS EXACTLY, which seems to be the foolish assumption you are trying to provide support for.

I don't need to prove anything ol chap. You are the one that needs to show evidence that what you claim is fact.
What I have said, is accepted mainstream opinion

...so other stars provide support for stars orbiting stars? Ok....Thanks for appreciating that is a reality.

As I have pointed out, that situation is observationally verified. We see the Centauri system for example....well at least those instruments you seem not to have much faith in, sees the individual stars in that system, which cannot be discertained by normal eyesight.
We call that instrument a telescope.
Our Sun has no such companion.

You even went so far as to show evidence of a system that orbits ON THE SAME ORDER OF MAGNITUDE. But let's ignore the significance of that, since we ignore everything else.

You mean ignore the Sun's imaginary companion???
The same Imaginary companion that instruments such as telescopes have not seen?..But which you say must exist to reinforce your shattered ego and support your nonsesne hypothesis?

"unsupported dribble"--simply because you don't understand the support doesn't mean it is unsupported. Perhaps you should consider this "often heard hypothesis" of "some hidden companion" finds EVIDENCE in the solar cycles. Or continue to assume you, and the scientific community as a whole, knows everything.

It is unsupported because we have nothing to indicate it could exist.
You may need to put it down to an unseen companion, much as your unseen God, I prefer to put it down to more mundane reasons.....like Jupiter/Saturn gravitational Interactions, like the uneven rotations the Sun experiences, based on whether one is at the equator or poles, the cooler Sunspot regions, the twisted magnetic field lines, the incredible Fusion machinery involved in the Sun itself.
Plenty of explanatory reasons to explain the solar flares, all rather natural mundane Occam's razor type of reasons, and all far more likely than some nonsensical unevidenced, unseen, Imaginary companion that you see the need to propose.

I bet you truly BELIEVE the Big Bang, don't you?

Yep, sure I do.
I align with what the overwhelming evidence tells us, and what has been accepted by mainstream as by far the most likely.
Even our hypocritical Catholic Church has seen the need to recognise the BB, as well as Evolution, due to the staggering amounts of evidence that supports it.

That our observation power is limitless in an infinite universe, that our knowledge is supreme. So many fallible steps made, your whole belief hinges on each assumption, that is so unfortunate. Do you KNOW what assumptions you believe without thought?

No, our observations are not limited...they are contained to t+10-43 seconds after the BB, up to the present, and entails around 96 billion L/years diameter, or the parameters of the observable Universe.
I accept assumptions based on logic, and good sample sizes, such as Isotropy and homegenity.
I do not accept some imaginary deity that made everything from nothing.
In fact mainstream science in many respects are moving towards a position where they maybe able to illustrate quite reasonably, that any such deity is redundant and unneccessary.

http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/

Whether you accept legitimate scientific reasoning and evidence, or whether you accept some mythical deity invoked by ancient man to explain the wonders of the Universe is your business.
But I will [and others will] continue to refute your bullshit driven by your fanatical belief in whatever mythical deity you chose to believe in.

 

[sscully]

Paddoboy, before I respond to your last post, I would appreciate it if you answer some questions about your beliefs for me. These are meant to be philosophical questions, not scientific.

Do you believe the Big Bang is generally accurate? In other words, do you believe EXPANSION OF SPACE exists? If so, why is it logical?

Do you believe the universe is finite? Infinite? If Infinite AND you believe the Big Bang, please explain how both can exist together (in other words, how infinite does not require eternal). If finite, please explain how a finite universe is logical (without bringing the Big Bang into your consideration as evidence, solely philosophically speaking).

What do you believe when I ask this question: Based on what you know of gravity (observably forming larger and larger orbiting masses), why isn't the Milky Way LOGICALLY orbiting something?

Lastly, do you understand all of the evidence that CAUSES the Big Bang to exist? This is very specific. Do you know what observations LED to the Big Bang? It is precisely one (all distant redshifted galaxies). Without this observation having been made, the universe would NEVER have been thought of as starting from a single point. Do you UNDERSTAND how this observation is the most fundamental observation to our ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING of the universe? Do you ALSO understand that the Big Bang theory exists as a RESULT of an ASSUMPTION MADE about this observation??? That assumption being that its cause is Doppler Shift, opposed to gravitational shift. Which one would you say is philosophically more logical?

I would humbly and truly appreciate your consideration of these questions.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy, before I respond to your last post, I would appreciate it if you answer some questions about your beliefs for me. These are meant to be philosophical questions, not simply scientific.

Do you believe the Big Bang is generally accurate? In other words, do you believe EXPANSION OF SPACE exists?

Yep, sure, evidence supports that fact. And so does mainstream cosmology, more Importantly.

Do you believe the universe is finite? Infinite? If Infinite AND you believe the Big Bang, please explain how both can exist together.

We don't really know with any certainty at all. Probably Infinite.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

What do you believe when I ask this question: Based on what you know of gravity (observably forming larger and larger orbiting masses), why isn't the Milky Way LOGICALLY orbiting something?

On such a large scale, it is first gravitationally bound within the local group, and that local group is moving inexorably towards the "Great Attractor and Virgo"

Lastly, do you understand all of the evidence that CAUSES the Big Bang to exist?

More to the point, do you?
Yes I do.

This is very specific. Do you know what observations LED to the Big Bang? It is precisely one.

Bullshit. It is precisely three and maybe four.
[1] Observed expansion and redshift of distant galaxies:
[2] Detection of the CMBR at a predicted correctly 2.7K.
[3] Abundance of the lighter elements:
[4] Galactic formation at the very tiny variables in the CMBR.

Without this observation having been made, the universe would NEVER have been thought of as starting from a single point. Do you UNDERSTAND how this observation is the most fundamental observation to our ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING of the universe? Do you ALSO understand that the Big Bang theory exists as a RESULT of an ASSUMPTION MADE about this observation???

I would appreciate your consideration of these questions. We will never get anywhere if you don't take a step back and think those through. You must first question everything, both scientifically AND philosophically, in order to understand the fundamentals of the universe.

I've answered your questions, now to comment on the above.
Your above collective incorrect assumptions is based on an incorrect opinion you have.
That opinion is tarnished and curtailed by what you have been indocrinated with as a child I would Imagine.
In essence, it is you who needs to take a step back, and examine what you are inferring...it is you that is in Alternative Hypothesis section because that is all you have...nothing concrete, nothing even smelling of a reasonable hypothesis.

Now you answer my points in my previous post and stop avoiding them.
All of them please.

 

[sscully]

Paddoboy, I specifically asked you to philosophically answer and you immediately looked at the evidence, which means you looked at the assumptions made about the evidence. If you don't think about them, I am going to not waste my time here. Sorry, but you are lost.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy, before I respond to your last post, I would appreciate it if you answer some questions about your beliefs for me. These are meant to be philosophical questions, not scientific.
.

And I have answered your questions scientifically and according to latest knowledge and data that I am aware of.

Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know:
Bertrand Russell :

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy, I specifically asked you to philosophically answer and you immediately looked at the evidence, which means you looked at the assumptions made about the evidence. If you don't think about them, I am going to not waste my time here. Sorry, but you are lost.

You mean the evidence invalidates your personal mythical beliefs?

 

[sscully]

You mean the evidence invalidates your personal mythical beliefs?

Just facepalm. I feel sorry for you. Hopefully you will allow yourself to be enlightened when the world tells you to be.

 

[paddoboy]

Just facepalm. I feel sorry for you. Hopefully you will allow yourself to be enlightened when the world tells you to be.

No, I'm OK......I read, I learn, I question when needed.....I'm able to sort the wheat from the chaff,....I'm enlightened to the fact that God and similar myths are not needed now to explain the Universe around us....I'm OK.
You though are not allowed to listen to logic and reason, for fear of burning in everlasting fires. Sad.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A Universe from Nothing

by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.


In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.

http://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[sscully]

No, I'm OK......I read, I learn, I question when needed.....I'm able to sort the wheat from the chaff,....I'm enlightened to the fact that God and similar myths are not needed now to explain the Universe around us....I'm OK.
You though are not allowed to listen to logic and reason, for fear of burning in everlasting fires. Sad.

Wow, you truly don't understand the truth of Occam's Razor do you? The goal of science is to TAKE AWAY not to ADD. The Big Bang adds: expansion of space, dark energy, finite universe. See the critical flaw here, open your eyes.

 

[origin]

Wow, you truly don't understand the truth of Occam's Razor do you? The goal of science is to TAKE AWAY not to ADD. The Big Bang adds: expansion of space, dark energy, finite universe. See the critical flaw here, open your eyes.

You do not understand what science is. The goal of science is to understand the universe. Scientific theories strive to make sense of the observations and measurements that we take. The Big Bang Theory is an explanation for the observed expansion of the universe. The BBT makes several predictions, these predictions have turned out to be accurate. Dark energy is seperate from the BB, the concept of dark energy is a hypothesis that explains the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

These ideas were not added willy-nilly, they are put forth to explain the observations.

You are doing the opposite of science, you are making up things that have no observational evidence (such as your mythical BH).

 

[sculptor]

alternately, we have:
Dr. Nicola Scafetta has written an extensive summary of the state of climate science today. He’s done some very extensive analysis of the solar contribution that bears examination.

 

[origin]

alternately, we have:
Dr. Nicola Scafetta has written an extensive summary of the state of climate science today. He’s done some very extensive analysis of the solar contribution that bears examination.

I know the whole basis of this thread is rather silly, but you still should not try to hijack it to espouse your personal views on climate change!

 

[sculptor]

I know the whole basis of this thread is rather silly, but you still should not try to hijack it to espouse your personal views on climate change!

You seem to assume that I have a "view" or position---------which, I do not.
I just find the varied scientific approaches rather interesting. Scafetta's investigations into planetary gravitational forcings is well worth the read.

 

[sscully]

You do not understand what science is. The goal of science is to understand the universe. Scientific theories strive to make sense of the observations and measurements that we take. The Big Bang Theory is an explanation for the observed expansion of the universe. The BBT makes several predictions, these predictions have turned out to be accurate. Dark energy is seperate from the BB, the concept of dark energy is a hypothesis that explains the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

These ideas were not added willy-nilly, they are put forth to explain the observations.

You are doing the opposite of science, you are making up things that have no observational evidence (such as your mythical BH).

Wowwww no wonder no one has walked this simple path before me. If you don't appreciate philosophy, you will never understand science. Blind, blind, blind. Dark energy is not separate from the Big Bang theory in that it REQUIRES the Big Bang in order for us to think it exists. Do you truly not see a problem in adding these things? I've already showed you in another thread that you equally bashed why gravity causes all observations and why none of these things NEED TO BE ADDED. In fact, I've already shown you how to SUBTRACT because there is but ONE fundamental law of nature. This act of REMOVING ignorance is the goal of science. Not adding more and more and more and more fundamentals than there actually are.

 

[origin]

Wowwww no wonder no one has walked this simple path before me.

Lots of people have walked this path, and like you they are all ignorant of the scientific process and science in general.

If you don't appreciate philosophy, you will never understand science.

So what are you saying? Are you a philosophy major working at a 7-eleven?

Blind, blind, blind.

Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant.

Dark energy is not separate from the Big Bang theory in that it REQUIRES the Big Bang in order for us to think it exists.

The big bang was a theory long before the observations were made that led to the idea of dark energy.

Do you truly not see a problem in adding these things?

WTF are you suggesting! Are you blind, blind, blind as well as ignorant, ignorant, ignorant? There is an observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating - are you suggesting that we ignore that so nothing is "added" to our knowledge? What, are you nuts?

I've already showed you in another thread that you equally bashed why gravity causes all observations and why none of these things NEED TO BE ADDED.

But that goofy idea was demonstrable false and it showed little more than a childs understanding of science.

In fact, I've already shown you how to SUBTRACT because there is but ONE fundamental law of nature.

Again, that hairbrained idea was demonstrably false and to accept it at face value would probably require a tramatic brain injury, or at least a complete lack of any understanding of current science.

This act of REMOVING ignorance is the goal of science. Not adding more and more and more and more fundamentals than there actually are.

The ignorance of science on this forum would be greatly decreased if you would just stop posting these made up illogical absurdities

 

[sscully]

You are lost. I'm not going to bother to continue this back and forth, you are too close-minded to even begin to comprehend that the observations can have ALTERNATIVE explanations that are far simpler than the silly complexity and nonsensical explanation that is the Big Bang. Simply because we can apply an interpretation of the observations does not mean the interpretation is correct.

 

[origin]

You are lost. I'm not going to bother to continue this back and forth, you are too close-minded to even begin to comprehend that the observations can have ALTERNATIVE explanations that are far simpler than the silly complexity and nonsensical explanation that is the Big Bang. Simply because we can apply an interpretation of the observations does not mean the interpretation is correct.

Of course there can be alternative explanations but they must at least be logically consistent and make use of sound scientific priciples. Your conjectures demonstrate neither of these attributes. Your conjectures are little more than hand waving uninformed guesses that do not come close to a expressing a cogent idea.

Sorry, but you know... it is what it is.