Big planets modulate stars, but small planets can’t?

OK, over at WUWT a barycentric thread briefly broke out, then Anthony slammed shut comments as he was convinced Lief was right and the referenced paper was right and there was no way the planets can stir the sun; and was tired of comments saying maybe it could.

There are a lot of interesting bits of evidence FOR the planet influence idea scattered through the comments.

That sent me off looking at some other things. One of them is very speculative, horridly complicated, and I’m not sure I can do a credible value added posting about it. ( I stumbled on a disk shaped magnetohydrodynamic generator and some physics that looks like it ties magnetic moment to angular momentum. I’ll ponder it a bit more, then maybe put an update here or a new posting…)

But along the way, that sent me off looking for ‘inflow’ of material to the sun. I did find some (so there is a plausible way for the MHD disk to work, as it needs outflow at the radius and inflow at the poles). And THAT lead to looking square in the face of something else.

Variable stars with exoplanets that look very much like the star is being modulated by the planet.

That’s what this posting is about.

We have here an existence proof (of sorts) of very large planets moving fast in close causing their stars to be highly variable on a fast basis. Yet folks seem unwilling to accept that slower planets moving further out might also cause a star to vary, just more slowly and less strongly.

January 20th, 2011, 23:01 GMT · By Tudor Vieru

WASP-33b Causes Parent Star to Pulsate

While analyzing a known Delta Scuti variable (dwarf Cepheid) star nearby, a group of experts from Spain noticed that the object features a large extrasolar planet in its orbit, that may influence its brightness. The interactions have not been observed until now.

The exoplanet, called HD 15082 b, or WASP-33b, was discovered back in 2010, by the SuperWASP planet-hunting project. It orbits very close to its star, and a year on it lasts precisely 1.22 days.

Astronomers in Spain were recently studying the parent star, called WASP-33 (or HD15082), when they began suspecting that the motions of the planet may have something to do with its brightness variation patterns.

WASP-33 is cataloged as a dwarf Cepheid because it exhibits variations in its luminosity due both to radial and non-radial pulsations of its surface. What experts did not know was that some of these pulsations may in fact be caused by the accompanying exoplanet, not the star itself.

Interesting to note is that Habibulo Abdumatisov found a change in our sun diameter and is using that to predict a coming very cold time starting about 2014. See below for the video’s from the conference. This class of variable star also has diameter changes.

Observations of the planetary system reveal that the large gas giant accompanying the star is likely a hot Jupiter-class planet, which may explain the short duration of its year.

The two objects, which are most likely tidally locked by the intensity of their gravitational and tidal interactions, can be seen about 378 light-years away, in the constellation of Andromeda, Daily Galaxy reports.

The star is a spectral type A celestial fireball that has 1.5 solar masses, say experts at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) Institute of Space Sciences (IEEC-CSIC), who were in charge of the new investigation.

It is estimated that WASP-33b is only 0.02 astronomical units (AU) away from its parent stars. An AU is equal to the distance between the Earth and the Sun, or about 93 million miles. For comparison, Mercury is located 0.39 AU from the Sun, but is many times less massive than the exoplanet.

Due to this close proximity, the team suspects that the accompanying object may have a direct influence on the brightness variation patterns the star displays. A peculiar signal caught the attention of Spanish astronomers, who say that they plan to continue investigations.

Recently, a number of studies have proposed that hot Jupiter-class exoplanets – large objects orbiting near their parent stars – could have an influence on the brighting and dimming behavior of their parent. The correlation may hold especially true for variable stars.

So a star just a little larger than ours, with a planet 4 times the size of Jupiter. Only ‘weird bit’ is the closeness and speed of rotation.

There’s also a fairly limited wiki, that mostly asserts relativistic effects from the high rotation rates are what cause things to be different. But I’d expect different degree, same kind…

In view of the high rotational speed of its parent star, the orbital motion of HD 15082 b may be affected in a measurable way by non-Keplerian effects like, e.g., the huge oblateness of the star and the general relativistic gravitomagnetic field. More precisely, the gravitational field of the distorted star is different from that coming from the usual Newtonian inverse-square law. The same holds also for the terms arising from general relativity, yielding the well-known frame-dragging precession. As a consequence, the orbital trajectory of HD 15082 b is shifted with respect to the purely Keplerian ellipse.

Our Sun

Here’s the Habibulo video and some discussion of that video.

by Jerome R. Corsi
Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter.

CHICAGO – A new “Little Ice Age” could begin in just four years, predicted Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia.

Abdussamatov was speaking yesterday at the Heartland Institute‘s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago, [...]
In the first of a two-part video WND recorded at the conference, Abdussamatov explained that average annual sun activity has experienced an accelerated decrease since the 1990s. In 2005-2008, he said, the earth reached the maximum of the recent observed global-warming trend.

In Part 2 of the video, Abdussamatov further explained that through 2014 the earth will go through a series of unstable variations in which global temperature will oscillate around the maximum reached in the years 1998-2005.

In 2003-2005, Abdussamatov predicted a reduction of sunspot activity that would reach a new minimum in 2042, resulting in a deep global temperature minimum in the years 2055-2060.

“My predictions are looking better and better with each passing year,” Abdussamatov declared.

Space station to refine predictions

In his capacity of the head of the Russian-Ukrainian project “Astrometria” on the Russian segment of the International Space Station, Abdussamatov is conducting additional research to refine his prediction that a new Little Ice Age will begin in 2014.

As seen in Part 2 of the video, Abdussamatov explained to the climate conference that the Russian segment of the ISS is scheduled to collect more precise data on sun activity over the next six years.

“If the Astrometria project is developed in time,” Abdussamatov said, “we will be able to develop a more precise forecast of the duration and the depth of the approaching new Little Ice Age and to understand the reasons of cyclical changes taking place in the interior of the sun and the ways they affect the Earth and various scopes of human activity.”

Abdussamatov’s theory is that “long-term variations in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth are the main and principal reasons driving and defining the whole mechanism of climatic changes from the global warmings to the Little Ice Ages to the big glacial periods.”

In his speech’s conclusion, Abdussamatov took on advocates of the theory of man-caused warming who want to diminish human use of hydrocarbon fuels. He contended, instead, that a reasonable way to combat coming cooling trends would be “to maintain economic growth in order to adapt to the upcoming new Little Ice Age in the middle of the 21st century.”

Sun activity determines temperatures

Abdussamatov’s research amounts to a sharp rebuke of climate scientists who believe human-generated carbon dioxide is responsible for causing catastrophic global warming, issuing instead a news flash announcing “Sun Heats Earth!”

WND previously reported Abdussamatov published a paper in which he tracked sunspot activity going back to the 19th century to argue that total sun irradiance, or TSI, is the primary factor responsible for causing climate variations on Earth, not carbon dioxide.

Moreover, Abdussamatov’s analysis of sun activity data has led him to conclude that the Earth is entering a prolonged cooling phase, because sunspot activity is currently in a phase regarded as a “minimum.”

“Observations of the sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is ‘not guilty,’” Abdussamatov wrote, “and as for what lies ahead in the coming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged temperature drop.”

Abdussamatov’s paper is featured on page 140 of a 2009 report issued by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, documenting more than 700 scientists who disagree that global warming is an anthropogenic, or man-made, phenomenon.
Abdussamatov also observed “the most significant solar event in the 20th century was the extraordinarily high level and the prolonged (virtually over the entire century) increase in the energy radiated by the sun,” resulting in the global warming that today climate alarmists believe is a man-made phenomenon.

“The intense solar energy flow radiated since the beginning of the 1990s is slowly and decreasingly and, in spite of conventional opinion, there is now an unavoidable advance toward a global decrease, a deep temperature drop comparable to the Maunder minimum,” he wrote.

In his published paper, Abdussamatov warned that more precise determination of when the global temperature decrease will arrive and how deep it will be may not be available for another eight years from his space station research.

“The observed global warming of the climate of the Earth is not caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses, but by extraordinarily high solar intensity that extended over virtually the entire past century,” Abdussamatov wrote. “Future decrease in global temperature will occur even if anthropogenic ejection of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere rises to record levels.

“Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop.”

Abdussamatov concluded Earth is no longer threatened by the catastrophic global warming forecast by some scientists, since warming passed its peak in 1998-2005.

“The global temperature of the Earth has begun its decrease without limits on the volume of greenhouse gas emissions by industrial developed countries,” he wrote. “Therefore, the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol aimed to rescue the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off at least 150 years.”

So we have a Russian Scientist finding changes in solar diameter that cause our sun to vary in output. They come right on top of the pattern of solar motion predicted via planetary positions as causing a solar slowdown. We have an exoplanet causing similar changes in the observed variable star. Yet some folks want to insist that exoplanets can make variable stars while our planets can not.


For my dime, it looks like the same physics is happening in both cases, just one is fast and hard while the other is slower and softer. Variations in degree, not in kind, of activity.

I don’t have a whole lot of discussion beyond that. Just “And yet, it moves!”. That’s not the only case of a variable star with a large close in planet moving fast. As we can find ‘big and fast’ more easily than slow, we’ll find lots of those kinds of exoplanets first. It will take more time to find similar systems with planets orbiting at a few years. Eventually we’ll be able to make a distribution of planet orbital time vs variable star rate and may be able to show a mathematical decay in variability that would still leave our sun as a variable, just only by a little bit and only slowly. Until then, it’s mostly a hypothesis, not so much evidence.

Has basically the same story.

The study also suggests that the star’s pulsations could be caused by the presence of the giant planet, something never seen before in any other planetary system.

A small periodic signal, visible in the overall signal during the transit of the planet, called the attention of the researchers and through a thorough study, the pulsating modes of the star were determined and their possible relationship with the planet.

Apart from being a pioneering study in the field, it is noteworthy to mention that the observations have been obtained from professional and amateur observatories.

For the first time in its recent activity history, the Montsec Astronomical Observatory (OAdM) has provided most of the observations used for this research. In addition, the amateur astronomer R. Naves, from the Montcabrer Observatory, has provided excellent data, revealing the great importance of Professional-Amateur collaborations in this field.

Therefore, the WASP-33 system represents a landmark in the world of exoplanets since it may provide vital information on pulsations modes that occur in stars, the effects of tides between stars and planets and the dynamical evolution of planetary systems.

So at least some folks are looking at stars and planets and thinking maybe they interact in more than one direction.

Some Misc. Links

At this point I’m just going to put up some links for my own reference, and for anyone else who wants to take a look at them.

There’s a Czech site that was doing variable star studies and has now branched out into exoplanets too. Looks like they find the two related (and likely use similar techniques to find both).

There are the bits of my half finished idea that angular momentum and magnetism are related and driven by electrical effects. First up is a graph of angular momentum of planets vs magnetic moment.

Magnetic Moment vs Angular Momentum

Magnetic Moment vs Angular Momentum

There’s a bit of science that says that conductive / charged things have a direct relationship between their angular momentum and their magnetism.

Any free system. with a constant gyromagnetic ratio, such as a rigid system of charges, a nucleus, or an electron, when placed in an external magnetic field B (measured in teslas) that is not aligned with its magnetic moment, will precess at a frequency f (measured in hertz), that is proportional to the external field:
Consider a charged body rotating about an axis of symmetry. According to the laws of classical physics, it has both a magnetic dipole moment and an angular momentum due to its rotation. It can be shown that as long as its charge and mass are distributed identically (e.g., both distributed uniformly), its gyromagnetic ratio is:

gama=charge / 2 x mass

Note that while this is most often applied to atomic scale particles, it applies to any body.

The Barnett effect is the magnetization of an uncharged body when spun on its axis.[1] It was discovered by American physicist Samuel Barnett in 1915.[2]

An uncharged object rotating with angular velocity ω tends to spontaneously magnetize, with a magnetization given by:

M = xw/γ

with γ = gyromagnetic ratio for the material, χ = magnetic susceptibility.

The magnetization occurs parallel to the axis of spin. Barnett was motivated by a prediction by Owen Richardson in 1908, later named the Einstein-de Haas effect, that magnetizing a ferromagnet can induce a mechanical rotation. He instead looked for the opposite effect, that is, that spinning a ferromagnet could change its magnetization. He established the effect with a long series of experiments between 1908 and 1915.

Magnetic moment and angular momentum

The magnetic moment has a close connection with angular momentum called the gyromagnetic effect. This effect is expressed on a macroscopic scale in the Einstein-de Haas effect, or “rotation by magnetization,” and its inverse, the Barnett effect, or “magnetization by rotation.”
In particular, when a magnetic moment is subject to a torque in a magnetic field that tends to align it with the applied magnetic field, the moment precesses (rotates about the axis of the applied field). This is a consequence of the angular momentum associated with the moment.

Viewing a magnetic dipole as a rotating charged sphere brings out the close connection between magnetic moment and angular momentum. Both the magnetic moment and the angular momentum increase with the rate of rotation of the sphere. The ratio of the two is called the gyromagnetic ratio, usually denoted by the symbol γ.[5] [6]

So we have this huge ball of conductive magnetic stuff and it’s angular momentum is being wobbled around by the planets. Nobody disputes that. All they do is say “but the tides are small”. Yet here is some physics that seems to say angular momentum and magnetism are joined at the hip and it scales from small particles on up to bar magnets and even large balls of swirling liquid metal (in a physical model being used to study what might happen in the sun).

Seems to me like a very straight line from ‘rotating conductive charged ball’ to variable with angular momentum changes.

Beyond that, we have various interactions of those magnetic fields with all sorts of charged particles making a solar wind ( that we know has changed dramatically with the change of solar angular momentum). That’s when I ran into this interesting gizmo.

Down in the disk generator section.

Disk MHD Generator

Disk MHD Generator

Now when I look at this, it looks rather like the solar system. We’ve got a sheet of solar wind heading outbound and we’ve got a modest amount of ‘conductor’ scattered around in the various planets, comets, asteroids, and just the non-solar wind particles (or even just different speed bits). Sure looks to me like a whole lot of electricity could be generated this way. And what do we find? Millions of amps of current flowing about the solar system as Birkeland currents and various other bits. That, then, also gets us back to the homopolar motor effect where those currents could put added torque on the planets. But also as they come from the sun, could have similar effects there.

And could there be evidence for such currents?

The plasma in the interplanetary medium is also responsible for the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field at the orbit of the Earth being over 100 times greater than originally anticipated. If space were a vacuum, then the Sun’s 10^-4 tesla magnetic dipole field would reduce with the cube of the distance to about 10^-11 tesla. But satellite observations show that it is about 100 times greater at around 10^-9 tesla. Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) theory predicts that the motion of a conducting fluid (e.g. the interplanetary medium) in a magnetic field, induces electric currents which in turn generates magnetic fields, and in this respect it behaves like a MHD dynamo.

At this point I’ve reached a ‘failure to integrate’ as there are just too many moving bits to sort it out in one evening. It will take focused time for a week or two to polish the connections and I’m not likely to do that right now (too many other pending things that must be done).

But what HAVE we got? We’ve got all the forces and flows needed to make things spin more, or less, and to change the solar diameter. We’ve got a direct tie from angular momentum to magnetic moment in a sun that is powered largely by the magnetic force driving from down in the center of the sun up to the solar wind. That solar wind then having many impacts on our weather.

Then there are all those ‘existence proofs’ of objects in space with their angular momentum and magnetic moments plotting on a nice straight line. And the solar angular momentum being stirred around by the major planets.

It sure looks to me, though, like it’s not too hard to at least pencil in how the dots connect. Planets stir solar angular momentum that directly reflects in magnetic changes that propagate into solar diameter changes and activity changes, including solar wind changes, that turn into major changes of electrical flows (that may or may not add their own impacts). Not one speed bump on that road that I can see. Just a lot of knitting needed to tie it together and a load of math to show it balances out.

Maybe at this point someone else could run with it for a while ;-)

Subscribe to feed

About these ads

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Science Bits and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Big planets modulate stars, but small planets can’t?

  1. Ian W says:

    I must admit there seems to be a large disconnect in the science. On one hand astronomers searching for extrasolar planets are using the doppler shift in the light from the stars to detect ‘wobble’ caused by orbiting planets. Gravitation is a mutual attraction so this makes sense. Any mass moving in a circle is under continual acceleration toward the center of the circle due to a centripetal force. Therefore, every planet is being accelerated toward the center of its orbit and the centripetal force in this case is the gravitational attraction of the Sun. The amount of force to accelerate Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus must be considerable. This is an attraction therefore the Sun at the other end of the attraction is subject to the same forces. The Sun is also orbiting the center of mass of the Solar system which can be outside the Sun. This is the wobble seen by astronomers looking at stars with planets.

    However, the other scientists with no apparent observational support but lots of maths on gravity wells etc., say the tidal forces of gravitation from the planets is so weak that it barely raises the Sun’s plasma a few millimeters.

    I find it strange that at one end the force is enough to keep Jupiter in orbit but at the other it is so weak. It makes me believe that someone is missing something somewhere. Especially as those astronomers looking for planets can watch other stars wobbling and a force that wobbles a star cannot be weak.

  2. pyromancer76 says:

    “Maybe at this point someone else could run with it for a while ;-)”. I hope so. My hunch is that important new discoverie(s) are bound to come from this kind of close questioning of all Sun’s activities and movements. Perhaps this will become one (the only one!?) “thank you” to fraudulent AGW “science”. Thanks to you, E.M., for an essay full of insights and avenues for exploration.

  3. vukcevic says:

    Although the ‘de Jager et al’ paper reject baricentric hypothesis, as far as I can see it the electro-magnetic hypothesis is still standing. Svalgaard has reasons to oppose with all available means:
    Dr.S.’s theory is successful in predicting SC max one cycle ahead; my hypothesis allows to go further in time by using the ‘Svalgaard’s method’, and that definitely would make his hypothesis only a second order forecasting tool, while polar field equation takes primacy:
    Even NASA now admit that the sun’s polar areas are in a direct link with Earth’s magnetic poles, if this is valid for the Earth, there is no doubt it is case with Jupiter. For some time I have steered away from the gravitational and angular momentum discussion for simple reason that all aspects of solar activity are electro-magnetic and bi-polar, so I am convinced that eventual solution will be found in that domain too.

  4. p.g.sharrow says:

    @EM your pictorial MHD dynamo’s top half looks just like the thing that I am working on. Just substitute Aetherial/EMF flows for Fluid and the flows could be external to the magnetic fields as well as internal. I have seen pictures of UFOs where the design flows are internal. Form follows function! pg

  5. thoughts on the overall effeects of homopolar generators, or Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) driven solar system I had last night and put down on paper.

  6. adolfogiurfa says:

    We should free ourselves from the wrong concept of “the more difficult to understand, the more intelligent the proposition” because it precisely the contrary: “the more difficult to understand, the higher the probability it is wrong”, and free ourselves of that shame of appearing before the eyes of other “intelligent people” (ideologues) as dumb. That will be a real big effort for our cheated from childhood egos.
    No one of us is still capable of achieving the simplicity of Pythagoras using his Monochord and drawing his triangle on sand.

  7. vukcevic says:

    I tackled magnetohydrodinamics maths on and off , anyone who can sail trough the end deserves the greatest of respect !.

  8. adolfogiurfa says:

    As an example: Remember the guy who SQUARED the velocity of light, contradicting himself?, well, but also remember there was a war then, and at the other side there was another guy who proposed something more simple, as E=hv…..
    When politics and ideology meddles in, propaganda substitutes education and washes the brains of several generations of children.

  9. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Vukcevic: ……or the biggest laugh!

  10. KevinM says:

    Gas giant vs Uranium commet?

  11. E.M.Smith says:

    I notice that nobody is commenting on what, for me, was the biggest point: There is a direct and fundamental tie between angular momentum and magnetic moment in spinning charged / conductive objects. The sun is a spinning charged / conductive object. Therefore any change in AM ought to reflect in a change of magnetic forces. The sun is driven by magnetic forces, so changes in them will change solar output.

    Notice that tides are not involved.

    Notice that angular momentum changes proportional to mass and radius, so those ‘way out there’ planets have plenty of angular momentum to exchange with the sun and stir the pot. Notice that as the sun gets ‘jerked around’ changing its angular momentum, it has changes of magnetism (sun spots) and of output. No tides required.

    That one link, of AM to magnetism, bypasses all the arguments about forces being too small…

    Now, most of the time, that particular bit of theory is applied to subatomic particles; however, the original experiments done were with rods of ferric materials. Observing the macro changes that came from the subatomic movements.

    It’s that “bit” which ties all the “spin orbit coupling” of the atomic scale to the macro scale. It is that bit which shows that macro scale “spin orbit coupling” also exists. Once you have that, the rest is just “icing” and elaboration. (Elaboration I’m a bit too slothful to get done…)

  12. Volker Doormann says:

    “If the Astrometria project is developed in time,” Abdussamatov said, “we will be able to develop a more precise forecast of the duration and the depth of the approaching new Little Ice Age and to understand the reasons of cyclical changes taking place in the interior of the sun and the ways they affect the Earth and various scopes of human activity.”

    Well, I do not know what the physics is, but the cyclical changes of climate since the begin of the Holocene are related to heliocentric solar tide functions which are in harmony with the terrestrial heat frequencies of month to millennia. Higher frequencies are related to the couples near the sun, and lowest frequencies of 1/900 y^-1 are related to the couple Quaoar/Pluto.

    Because this is evident from temperature proxies of the last two millennia and the last UAH data from the years one can say that the global temperature will slightly decrease in the next decades, but because the main heat function has always three maxima, the global temperature will increase then after ~2050 AD to a more higher maximum as now. The next first (of three) climate minimum of a LIA like will occur in ~2300 AD.

    It seems that the mechanism is not equal to Newton’s gravitation. What remarkable is, is that long phase times and high densities of the objects have a special meaning. And it seems,that the function of the magnitude is inverse to the squared the tide frequency.


  13. vukcevic says:

    Because it’s too damn difficult to comprehend maths of it, even for a simplest of charged particles, see Paul Dirac’s : The Quantum Theory of the Electron

  14. p.g.sharrow says:

    Everything is made up of charges. Any change in acceleration direction creates EMF field changes or Changes of EMF fields cause change of acceleration directions. The dance of the sun and planets involve many gigi tons of matter in changes of acceleration direction. Even in free fall, mass/inertia effects still hold sway. Gravity is a side effect of the charges caused by angular momentum internal of matter. Mass/inertia and its resultant charges is the real Gorilla in this jungle, not gravity.
    As to the math of this, I’m a old farmer and electrician, not a mathematician. pg

  15. R. de Haan says:

    E.M.Smith says:
    18 April 2012 at 6:01 pm
    I notice that nobody is commenting on what, for me, was the biggest point: There is a direct and fundamental tie between angular momentum and magnetic moment in spinning charged / conductive objects. The sun is a spinning charged / conductive object. Therefore any change in AM ought to reflect in a change of magnetic forces. The sun is driven by magnetic forces, so changes in them will change solar output.

    Notice that tides are not involved.

    E.M., I agree with you and I think Anthony has made a mistake closing the comment section on the subject. Very unfortunate.

  16. adolfogiurfa says:

    Think in waves that´s the answer! No “pebbles universe” anymore.

  17. Agile Aspect says:

    vukcevic says:
    18 April 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Although the ‘de Jager et al’ paper reject baricentric hypothesis, as far as I can see it the electro-magnetic hypothesis is still standing.


    There is no “baricentric hypothesis” – this is WUWT nonsense.

    The barycenter is the center of mass – it’s a mathematical transformation.

    It’s similar to transforming from Cartesian coordinates to spherical coordinates – you do it to exploit the symmetry of the problem and to simplify the calculations.

    The physics remains the same.

  18. Agile Aspect says:

    E.M.Smith says:
    18 April 2012 at 6:01 pm
    I notice that nobody is commenting on what, for me, was the biggest point: There is a direct and fundamental tie between angular momentum and magnetic moment in spinning charged / conductive objects.


    For our solar system, the “magnetic Bode law” is

    M_{surface} = 4 x 10^{-9}A^{0.83}

    where M_{surface} has units of “Gauss m^3″ and A has units of “kg*m^2*sec^{-1}”.

  19. Agile Aspect says:

    Ian W says:
    18 April 2012 at 10:42 am


    The wobble of the object, however, is the orbit of the object around the center of mass (which creates the illusion of a wobble in the telescope because the orbits are tight – high eccentricity.)

    And since they have high eccentricity orbits, this implies they have very inefficient tidal forces (otherwise they would lose orbital energy and spiral inwards.)

  20. Agile Aspect says:

    Agile Aspect says:
    19 April 2012 at 1:11 am

    And since they have high eccentricity orbits, this implies they have very inefficient tidal forces (otherwise they would lose orbital energy and spiral inwards.)


    Actually, because of the high eccentricity, the spin axis typically doesn’t line up with the angular momentum axis which makes the tidal dissipation inefficient (but easy to calculate.)

    With nearly circular orbits, the tidal forces are efficient (and difficult to calculate.)

  21. Geoff Sharp says:

    I have always thought AM has to be related to solar output. Its not hard to see there are two ways that AM affects the Sun. In a basic background mode the more AM that is available the stronger the solar cycle, low cycles happen when AM is at its lowest, this occurs when Uranus and Neptune are apart like we saw around 1900. So AM is acting like a pump constantly taking the Sun from deceleration to acceleration mode every 10 years. When the conditions are right that process is severely hampered which is the second mode, The constant motion is broken and for a few years that motion travels in the opposite direction to normal…this is occurring right now and shows a lower magnetic output. The dynamo may simply be a product of AM.

    Chiefio could be onto something here.

  22. E.M.Smith says:

    @Geoff Sharp:

    The complaint is always about the lack of ‘mechanism’. IMHO, the direct connection of AM to magnetic moment gives the mechanism. The sun is driven by it’s magnetic core, AM stirs the magnetic moment. Not much else needed, really.

  23. Pascvaks says:

    Just a thought -
    If I had a rock that wouldn’t budge, a place to stand of my own choice, and a stick long enough, I could move the Universe. A distant relative of ours once said, “Give me a place to stand, and I shall move the Earth with a lever”

    Might we be searching for the Holy Fulcrum AND Lever, maybe they’re invisable to the naked eye too? Why were we created naked and so like a sponge? You’d think that being naked would have been enough;-)

    Now comes the hard part, where are all the @#$% fulcrums and levers? I know they’re out there somewhere; I can see them moving everything around.

  24. adolfogiurfa says:

    Make it simple! Take your monochord and play it!

  25. Ian W says:

    One of the points that has not been raised here is that the Earth/Moon system _also_ orbits the Solar system barycenter. If that barycenter is not describing a straight path through space, as would seem to be the case, then the Earth/Moon system will be perturbed by the movement of the barycenter. The timing of these perturbations and their effects would be chaotic in some instances having almost no effect but in others presumably the angular momentum of the Earth/Moon orbit would be affected positively or negatively. Is this what we are seeing in the variances in Length-of Day metrics?

  26. E.M.Smith says:


    Well, in wandering through these angular momentum relationships, there was another bit I ran into that I didn’t put in the article. Basically if one looks at antimatter combining with matter, photons are emitted, but the number is determined by the spin states. Angular momentum MUST be conserved, even if it means creating 3 vs 2 photons…

    Symmetry is of enormous importance in physics. When a system has symmetry, it leads to conservation laws: symmetry under time translation (i.e. the laws of physics are the same now as they were in 400 B.C.) results in energy conservation. Symmetry under spatial translation results in momentum conservation. Symmetry under rotations results in angular momentum conservation.

    To understand this in depth is beyond this course. But one can see some very simple consequences of how symmetry affects quantum mechanics (and hence the world!). I’ll explain how conservation of angular momentum helps us understand the decay of a particle called “positronium”. Understanding this will lead to a seeming paradox, but whose resolution shows that quantum mechanics is correct and consistent, but very weird.

    This implies to me that the reverse reaction ought also to be possible. Various photons with various spin states ought to be combinable into electrons, positrons, whatever. By smashing two photons directly head on into each other, conserving all the conserved properties, one would get positronium. (Positron / Electron orbiting each other). This implies to me that matter is just conserved angular momentum and energy with the linear momentum canceled out… Matter is what you get when light is in a rest state, or matter is photons spinning but not moving linearly. A consequence of the need to conserve all the conserved properties when some of them cancel out.

    When positronium decays, you can get two photons running in exactly opposite directions (net zero momentum) or you can get three photons ( if the spin state requires it). Always conserving the angular momentum, linear momentum, and energy.

    Interesting thought, that one… so we are all ‘beings of light’…

    The seeming paradox that paper talks about is how you can measure spin on one of the two photons after it’s gone a light year and when you measure it the other photon will be in the same state. So the two are seemingly ‘connected’ instantly over distance. Faster than light communications. (It also shows that it is functionally impossible to use this effect to communicate actual information…) Thus the ‘correct but weird’ statement.

    Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen noted this, and then postulated that quantum mechanics must therefore not be complete: there are “hidden variables” which result in the Alpha Centauri measurement being independent of ours. Thus they believed that quantum mechanics is a usually-correct way of describing reality, but that a local theory would replace it eventually. The truth is that this non-locality seems to be experimentally correct! (up to some subtleties mentioned in the web article). A measurement here really will affect the measurement on Alpha Centauri. There is no paradox: reality is just weird.

    So if conservation of angular momentum is so strongly bound to the functioning of the universe that a photon measured here can change one at Alpha Centari, it looks to me like changing the state of an entire sun full of angular momentum ought to have some effects somewhere!

    That the angular momentum MUST be conserved and that it IS proportional to magnetic moment says that magnetic moment MUST change. So there is an exchange of angular momentum from the planets (and the further away, the larger the radius, the greater the angular momentum – that’s why the gas giants dominate – it isn’t about gravity and tides…) to and from the sun that gets moved round rather a lot. That change of angular momentum IN the sun must show up as changes of magnetic moment, which then changes the reaction rates and energy flows.

    Eventually some of that energy leaves as light, and smacks into the Earth, giving us a change of weather. As some of those photons come to rest and become other forms of energy. Always conserving the angular momentum, energy, and linear momentum.

    It’s almost poetic that it all comes down to conservation of momentum and energy. Light particles in motion, or stopped, but still spinning. Matching up with other bits of light with compatible units of momentum and spin. Somewhere in that process we get gravity (perhaps just a consequence of ‘light at rest’?) electro-weak and all the other forces. Just light finding ways to conserve its properties as it changes states.

    (Less poetic folks can point out that a photon, once stopped, is no longer a photon. That light is defined as the moving particle, not the stationary ones. IMHO that’s a definitional game that misses the elegance of what actually happens. The “conversion” from matter to energy isn’t really much of a conversion, it is more like opening a book and seeing all the words. They were there all the time, you just didn’t see them when the cover is closed… We have conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum. The rest is just elaboration…)

    So I would assert that your ‘fulcrum’ is light. It is everywhere in the universe, connects everything, and moving one photon here can change another one on the other side of galaxy…

    It could also be Adolfo’s monochord…

  27. Volker Doormann says:

    Fields are good. V/m .
    A load is good. A sec.

    A ‘mass’ of: 1.7801 * 10-36 [V A sec3 m-2] is equal to an Energy of 1[eV].
    From this we can clean up the dimensions kg and Newton to the trash.
    A force F [N] has then the dimension [V A s m-1].
    The pressure P in [kg m s-2 m-2] has then the dimension [V A s3 m-3].
    The angular moment D [kg m2 sec-1] has then the dimension [V A s2] and <b<is equal to Planck’s constant h. Multiplied by a frequeny [1/s] is is an energy [V A s].

    The gravitational constant g [m3 kg-1 s2] has then the dimension [m5 s-5 V-1 A-1].

    The gravitational force F [ g x m1 x m2 x r-2 ] has the dimension [V A s m-1].

    Because ‘mass’ m [kg] = E * µ0 * epsilon0 (permeability and permittivity of the universe) there is no need for a mass anymore
    {numbers are power numbers}.

    good lesson on AM


  28. E.M.Smith says:

    @Ian W:

    I suspect that the AM wobble of Earth is the cause of our LOD changes, as you suggest. It is ‘spin-orbit coupling’ at the macro scale via the same conservation of AM requirement.

    This ought to cause mag flux variations, that though minor, could stir the iron core changing heat flow patterns; which could then explain the connection to volcanic activity cycling.

    I’ve not been able to ‘visualize in’ the secondary electrical effects yet. What electric currents in the MHD generator of the solar wind might be adding to the process, but Adolfo had a link to a nice movie of a homopolor motor showing that a current from top to bottom of a metal ball (or cylinder in the movie) will cause it to spin. So the Birkeland Currents will cause spin changes, I just don’t know if the scale is ‘near zero’ or ‘something that matters’. But those currents ought to be working through the same AM / Magnetic Moment couple, so seeing the AM change ought to capture their contribution.

    @Volker Doormann:

    Very nicely done. Why fool around with all the derived unit types? Just put it all in the basic energy terms… Then some of the ‘hidden’ connections are not so hidden.

  29. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Volker Doormann That´s a good exercise to disentangle the tangle we are all in. Such a confusion of tongues, a babylonian confusion, a soup of letters glued by self conceit, until nobody understands anything….brilliant!

    Then…..why not replacing all equations by a single one?

  30. Volker Doormann says:

    E.M.Smith says:
    19 April 2012 at 6:54 pm
    Very nicely done. Why fool around with all the derived unit types? Just put it all in the basic energy terms… Then some of the ‘hidden’ connections are not so hidden.”

    I started this clean up because I don’t know the square of a velocity called c. After this I was not in harmony with a velocity because it could not be cached in physics. So I have taken the old pair of constants from the one electromagnetism and Einsteins’s equation was refinded to: M = E * µ0 * epsilon0 avoiding a (square) velocity. Unfortunately people have had this ‘apartheid’ between the world of magnetism and the world of electricity of the one nature of the inseparable electromagnetism, have defined it using meter and second, both not physical observables.

    As stated, it is interesting that the dimension of Planck’s constant is the same dimension as the AM. No one can destroy AM or create it out of nothing.

    I have long searched for the reason, why far distant ( ~30-40 AU ) couples have then strangest connection the climate frequency of ~900 y^-1 in a spring tide geometry with a cold phase when the couple has a heliocentric angle of 90° (nip tide).
    I still have no answer. There must be a compensation of effects on the sun at these angles.
    An other point is the complex of density, AM and G. It is remarkable that objects with high densities (Earth, Mercury, Venus, Quaoar, Pluto seems to have more impact than the big gas spheres or Mars that has no magnetic fields on the climate magnitude. Density and a function of s^2 has a similarity to the gravitational constant. Who knows?


  31. Geoff Sharp says:

    Ian W says:
    19 April 2012 at 4:52 pm

    One of the points that has not been raised here is that the Earth/Moon system _also_ orbits the Solar system barycenter

    This is a point quite often raised, but incorrectly. JPL data very clearly tells us the Earth/Moon system orbits the Sun/Earth barycentre. I have done the exercise myself on most of the planets and while there may be some doubt cast on Neptune the rest of the planets orbit their combined planet/barycentre point. I have plotted some of the values for comparison in a recent article debunking the solarchord theory.

    Chiefio’s research could probably be proved one day by observing stars without exoplanets. Such stars should display no modulation of magnetic output outside of a regular 11 year type cycle. I wonder if AM is controlling the dynamo in overall modulation but is the 11 year type cycle a product of differential rotation that is outside of planet influence? Low cycles tend to be longer so AM changes may still have an influence on extending/reducing the 11 year type cycle??

  32. Ian W says:

    There are still people that believe heliocentrism means that the Sun is stationary.. However, the Sun is actually orbiting the galaxy at a fair speed. But due to the motion of the barycenter the Sun is actually moving in an ‘epitrochoid’ path . Thus the Sun is accelerating and decelerating as it orbits the galaxy.

    But the Sun is not solid – it is a ball of plasma so what happens when the barycenter passes through the ‘surface’ of the sun or internal to the sun? It may be that too many have ‘considered the Sun as a point’ for simplicity. But what happens to a rotating ball of plasma that is orbiting a barycenter when that barycenter is just inside its surface running retrograde to its orbit? Some parts of the Sun may slow but the inner core of the Sun may not. How does that work for AM and magnetic effects?

    Back to the Earth/Moon – if the Earth/Moon system (both bodies moving in an epitrochoid path) is in that part of its orbit that it is ‘overtaking’ the Sun in its path around the galaxy when the barycenter moves backwards reference to the Sun’s orbit around the Galaxy what is the effect? How does this differ from the opposite position when the Earth/Moon system is moving retrograde to the Sun’s orbit and the barycenter moves backwards reference to the Sun’s orbit around the Galaxy? Is this chaotic change in acceleration the reason for the Milanković cycles?

    The continual force required to accelerate the Earth/Moon in the orbit around the Sun must change when the barycenter moves – given that the Earth is really a thin skinned globe of molten rock, is it surprising that cracks and vents appear given a relatively rapid change in the centripetal force and the AM? Is there a link between volcanic and earthquake effects and barycenter motion (thence AM changes)?

  33. E.M.Smith says:

    @Ian W:

    Earth orbital speed 29.8 km/s
    Sun orbital speed of galactic center 220 km/s

    We never go “backwards” relative to the galaxtic core. We go 250 or we go 190 km/s but always forward…

    BTW, the solar system disk is ‘on edge’ relative to the galaxy. So we ‘bob up and down’ each year…

    So we don’t have a retrograde phase. Rather like the earth / moon system where the moon never goes retrograde either. Just faster / slower and swapping what side of us we are on.

    Picture here:


    So we don’t have the retrograde orbit problem that the sun has. We still get some ‘wobble’ to our path, and that likely has some angular momentum portion to it, but ought to be a lot less and a lot easier to calculate.

    Ought to have a 28 day lunar period detectable in various processes if there really is a connection. I’m reminded of a few strange silver reactions that have different reaction rates depending on the lunar phase… Now if we have a true AM / magnetism connection we could have a mechanism for that, too. Slight variation in the momentum and magnetic moment of the silver and reactants? Heck, this could also explain things like how various sea critters moved to underground labs in the mid continent can stay in sync with the tides. Direct sensing of the moon via modulating chemical reactions.

    Wonder if there’s some way to set up an isolated magnetic device that could be monitored for nano-scale variation on a monthly basis? Some kind of super precise magnetic scale? Bet folks never bothered leaving one turned on for a few months and plotting the ‘error’ in tare setting…

    OK, the galactic ‘wobble’ is going to have a very long time period. IIRC, It’s about 25,000 years. So we ought to see a 12,500 or so year period when we reach the ends of the ‘bob up and down’ that the sun does. The actual circle around the center is much longer. Hundreds of thousands of years scale. Doubt if we’d see any detectable signal from that, but it would take geologic records of fine scale.

    I’m still of the opinion that the lunar motions will show up strongest. Galaxy related motions just don’t change fast enough.

  34. Volker Doormann says:

    adolfogiurfa says:
    19 April 2012 at 7:17 pm
    Then…..why not replacing all equations by a single one?

    If you look on the nature of light effects matter you can find that the nature is complex; the physics of absorbtion in oscillating matter is different to the physics of refraction in the very same oscillator. If the matter contains magnetism from ferroelectrics it becomes an equation of many terms. This fact shows that a suggested ‘single one’ is possible with a 3X3 tensor, but includes not harmony, resonance, or neutinos & Co.
    Psychologically the search of a single equation shows an interest in controlling the outer nature like the nuclear nature by physics, but not to understand nature in whole. There are many lacks of logic in the brains of conditioned academics by using phantoms like a space without any physical existence but still used in the sport of ‘simple equation ever’.
    Mathematicians have given up to calculate the nature at the Big Bang or prior because the formulas cannot solve a time of zero. But as we know energy cannot come out of nothing and the principles of AM are timeless.
    As long as students are celebrating time, space, causality and its son ‘mechanism’ because the professor told so, nature is not to be solved. There are many professors.
    It seems that there have some more clean up’s to do in the conditioned brains, but this seems to be impossible in this peer reviewed world without any agreement about the nature of the universe.

    There is one equation I = U x R ; if you take a (floating) current as IS because it IS timeless and without space it means that all outer nature is varying from resistance in the universe. If there is no resistance there is no visible nature.

    However. What is love?


  35. tallbloke says:

    Excellent post Chief. Along with Vuk, and since my experiments with comparing the consonance of alignments of Ju-Ea-Ve with the timing of minima in the ~11 Year Schwabe cycles along the Parker Spiral as against the direct geometrical alignments, I am of the opinion that the planetary-solar relationship as regards timings is primarily electro-magnetic.

    However, I have at the same time been emphasizing that the amplitude modulation is more likely linked to the gas giants, through a combination of AM and E/M effects. Your post argues for the close inter-relation of those AM and E/M effects, and this is a positive step forward towards reconciling the views of several of those working on the problem (hi Geoff).

    As Vuk says, the maths is fiendish, and this is part of the reason the astrophysics mainstream prefers to simplify things down to gravity and one way solar wind plus ‘frozen in’ magnetic fields. One thing standing in the way of your use of the magnetohydrodynamic disc analogy is Svalgaard’s insistence that electrons do not recycle into the solar poles, but “are stopped” some distance short of the Sun, and that this is confirmed by physical results from probes which have overflown the solar poles. Show us the data Leif.

    A conclusion reached by the proponents of the ‘solarchord’ hypothesis is that the planetary plane is orientated at around 45 degrees to the direction of travel of the solar system, in order to best conserve angular momentum. This seems to be approximately correct if you work out the angles between the ecliptic and the Milky Way. I think this may turn out to be important in terms of the relative lines of motion and the consequent induced currents in the planetary disc. The direction of the ‘ether drift’ calculated by Dayton Miller shouldn’t be neglected either. This may tell us something about the entrainment of the magnetic field relative to the rotating Earth.

    I don’t think we are very close to solving the complex problem, but I do think we are getting a better handle on specifying it.

  36. Alan says:
    You might be interested in this paper on the hall effect, the earths magnetic field, written by one of my old engineering professors

  37. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Volker Doormann: Ok!, that´s right, but you went too far back, indeed the beginning of everything, not only this particular and INDIVIDUAL universe, is 1 and 0: The Force and the Void.
    However my proposal it is not dealing with philosophical ideas but with practical physics, and the answer you can read it by clicking on my name.

  38. Volker Doormann says:

    adolfogiurfa says:
    21 April 2012 at 5:21 pm
    @Volker Doormann: .. you went too far back, indeed the beginning of everything, not only this particular and INDIVIDUAL universe, is 1 and 0: The Force and the Void.

    I have written here something about Abdussamatov’s (basis of) prediction, and my arguments, why his prediction suggest false temperatures.

    Thank you. I’m off here.


  39. Pascvaks says:

    @Ian W –
    Seems there’s a lot less to it than the headline would have one believe. When Leif Svalgaard and Tallbloke and Vukcevic and a few more start pointing to the same thingamabob and agreeing with one another you can bet we’re really in for a surprise historic proportions. But this ain’t it. Not even close.

    PS: Seems Real Climate was hacked and the Joker announced that Steve Goddard was dead, Steve said he wasn’t. What did Mark Twain say, ‘reports of my death are a might premature’?

  40. Pascvaks says:

    OK, it’s hard to keep yer mouth shut when you think there’s a tiny something crawling around in yer head, so.. from a guy what doesn’t know squat ’bout any of this astro-physics stuff, another point and scream moment as I shout “ba, ba, ba, look at this!” to the more educated minds (it’s also quite possible that this has been addressed in more technical terms already and I jus’ didn’t realize that’s what y’all were talking about;-). This is also very late in the game on this page so it’s possible it won’t even get a response, but what the hay, here goes nothin’ -

    1. 1 Jan 1969 to 1 Jul 1969-

    2. Tue 1969 Mar 25 13:13-

    Small Planets magnify/multiply/amplify AND retard/diminish/reduce (or whatever) the magnetic effect of the Jovians on Solar Cycles. The position of the planets (the inner vs the outer) directly impact the Solar magnetic field and the amount of neutrons/cosmic rays read by monitors on Earth. No bout a’doubt it! Leif may stomp a mudhole in my backside for saying it out loud, but it’s true. (It’s kind’a like saying electrons have no impact on atomic nucleii to say planets have no effect on stars;-)

    PS: In my amature opinion, Mercury has a bigger impact than the bigger close-in rocks too. The closer the fulcurm, the farther the ‘jovian pusher’ the bigger the effect of the lever on the Sun.

    PPS: Ain’t home schoolin’ neat?

  41. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Pascvaks: PS: In my amature opinion, Mercury has a bigger impact than the bigger close-in rocks too
    You are right. It has the biggest eccentricity.
    “They” still see planets as dead “pebbles” in the sky. Pythagoras to study this, took a cord and play it: It is known for every kid that the shorter the cord (wavelength) the higher the pitch, the higher the energy: E=h.v (Planck´s equation).
    My idea has been to substitute that h=0.66252, in first place by its real value (free from local influences)= 2/3=0.66666… and then generalize this “constant” to variable, because it varies as the addition of the sine and the cosine (the hypothenuse of the Pythagoras´triangle of forces, the resultant force), this is why, in electricity, to obtain Power you multiply not by 0.666, but by 1.4142135623731, the sqr. of 2= the hypothenuse of a triangle with two cathets (legs) each equal to one, or what is the same, the addition of sin=0.70710678118655 plus cos=0.70710678118655.
    So we only need a Monochord and a sandy ground for drawing a square triangle.

  42. Pascvaks says:

    Thank you Adolfo! I felt like a kid in a highchair who’d just trashed the kitchen and after the initial euphoria had worn off I just knew someone was going to walk in and blame me, little old me, for making a mess of everything within spoon shot;-)

  43. Agile Aspect says:

    Ian W says:
    21 April 2012 at 7:08 pm

    Interesting thread here which would seem connected to MHD theory based on this press release


    There’s huge amount of information on the Sun at

    Also, see

    The solar magnetic field
    Sami K. Solanki, Bernd Inhester, Manfred Schüssler

  44. E.M.Smith says:

    Tallbloke had a nice comment on the 21st that was stuck in the SPAM filter. Worth scrolling back up to read it.


    I’ll read it “soon”…

    @Ian W.:

    Thanks, I ‘hit the link’… which then consumed a chunk of last night ;-)

    Lief responded to my most gentile tugging toward a magnetic issue (that a ball of metal, spun, self generates a magnetic field and maybe that matters) by ignoring the point I made about ‘why does this physics not apply?’ via a dodge to ‘Here, read this how the sun works’. Oh Well…

    @Pascvaks & Agile Aspect:

    Oh Joy… more homework… But an interesting find. If the minor planets are shown to act as some kind of cosmic ray lens, and Svensmark is right, the rest becomes easy…

  45. p.g.sharrow says:

    Yes Lief is a valuable asset, He knows all that is accepted science on solar behavior. Of course that is not a great amount and some of that is wrong. Still a good resource to discover the accepted science and the latest data. Sure beats poking around in the dark and some of the latest satellite pictures are awesome. Once on a site Lief pointed me to had a solar surface picture that reminded me of a plasma discharge onto an electrode surface. I plumb forgot about the point he was trying to make. 8-) pg

  46. Agile Aspect says:

    Geoff Sharp says:
    19 April 2012 at 3:46 am

    In a basic background mode the more AM that is available the stronger the solar cycle, low cycles happen when AM is at its lowest, this occurs when Uranus and Neptune are apart like we saw around 1900.


    I became interested in Uranus because it’s angular momentum vector (resulting from Uranus’s obliguity or tilt) points along a line which runs roughly 400 km above (and below) the Sun’s polar regions during the winter (and summer.)

    And magnetically (if you think of the Uranus’s angular momentum vector as a magnetic dipole vector) the poles of Uranus would have opposite polarities during the winter and summer.

    Actually, I can’t remember the exact geometry so don’t quote me (I’m traveling with my netbook) – but it should be easy to check.

    At one point people were interested in Uranus as a source of dark matter since the poles were colder than the equator (even when the poles were pointing directly at the Sun.)

    But I believe the tidal dissipation forces of it’s ring system should be sufficient to explain the heat in the equatorial region.

Comments are closed.