Planetary Spin Orbit Coupling Exists

OK, this is something of a ‘marker posting’. Not a lot of ‘great insight’ but marking the existence of something I’ve been trying to show “exists” for a couple of years now. That is “Spin Orbit Coupling” at the macro level.

Substantially every time I’ve got on a Google Train of “Spin Orbit Coupling” it’s pulled into a sub atomic station. It’s just all over the place at that scale. You can’t hardly say “particle” without some kind of spin orbit coupling effect popping up.

Physics (like the conservation of angular momentum) implied to me that this is a property that ought to exist at all physical scales. I could not imagine a way to have angular momentum act differently at the sub atomic scale than at the macro… Yet despite my expectation, I could find almost nothing that said “spin orbit coupling” in the context of “planet”. The one exception being a paper by Ian Wilson that showed a Length Of Day (LOD) correlation with the PDO and correlation with the solar system orbital state. Yet “mainstream” climate folks were not keen on that paper, so I wanted ‘more than one’ reference. That, and the lack of other references was a bit unnerving.

But now I’ve run into a couple of more examples.

Why Does This Matter?

So, who cares? Well, the whole complaint about the “Solar output modulated by planets” thesis comes down to “only tides can happen and they are too small to matter”. But if there can be spin-orbit couples, then the entire Angular Momentum of the outer planets can have impact. As Angular momentum increases greatly with Radius, this means they could have a lot of ‘pull’ ;-) (Please, it’s only a little pun…)

Basically, if Spin Orbit Coupling is active and recognized at the macro / planet level, then folks need to address the question of what is happening to solar SPIN when the Angular Momentum of the solar system changes as the barycenter moves into and out of the sun. Having a spin change (even, or perhaps especially) if concentrated into particular layers or bands, could easily explain planetary modulation of solar output.

So where did I find a reference?

First, the bad news: It’s largely Wikipedia.

Second, the good news: The articles are not contentious, so ought to be fairly politically neutral. (Though now that I’ve tied them to Global Warming there is the risk that the Political Thought Police of AGW will go and erase or re-write them.)

For an example of the typical, highly subatomic particle oriented article, there is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin–orbit_interaction

Just full of stuff that sounds very sub-atomic specific and particle centric:

In quantum physics, the spin-orbit interaction (also called spin-orbit effect or spin-orbit coupling) is any interaction of a particle’s spin with its motion. The first and best known example of this is that spin-orbit interaction causes shifts in an electron’s atomic energy levels due to electromagnetic interaction between the electron’s spin and the nucleus’s magnetic field. This is detectable as a splitting of spectral lines. A similar effect, due to the relationship between angular momentum and the strong nuclear force, occurs for protons and neutrons moving inside the nucleus, leading to a shift in their energy levels in the nucleus shell model. In the field of spintronics, spin-orbit effects for electrons in semiconductors and other materials are explored and put to useful work.

Then here are two places where I’ve found a non-particle level reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_coupling

While much of that article is about sub-atomic spin-orbit coupling, it contained this giant gem:

In astronomy, spin-orbit coupling reflects the general law of conservation of angular momentum, which holds for celestial systems as well.

EXACTLY what I was looking for. My understanding that physics of momentum is the same at any and ALL scales, reflected in this one statement. I know, I ought not to have been so tentative about it and I ought to have just baldly asserted that it was the case. But there are enough things that are ‘different’ in the sub-atomic and quantum worlds that I was leery of just leaping from that to the Galactic without a bit of moral support / confirmation. It goes on:

In simple cases, the direction of the angular momentum vector is neglected, and the spin-orbit coupling is the ratio between the frequency with which a planet or other celestial body spins about its own axis to that with which it orbits another body. This is more commonly known as orbital resonance. Often, the underlying physical effects are tidal forces.

This lead to the insight that there was a ‘name change’ hiding the connection. That in astronomy, the concept was being hidden in / blended with “Orbital Resonance”. So here we have The Giant Missing Clue. The name was changed. But the point is clearly made that ‘body spin” can be interchanged with orbital rotation. Just like the earth spin is being changed by the moon via tides. I note in passing that it says “Often” … “effects are tidal forces.” (but not always?)

Also of note is that statement that the angular momentum vector is neglected in “simple cases”. Astronomy seems over full of “neglecting” and “simple cases”. In particular I note that they say when the momentum vector is ignored it is often called “orbital resonance”. OK, but what if I don’t want to ignore that vector? This, I think, is where the improvement will come. Just apply straight Angular Momentum physics, but do all of it this time…

But at least now we have something (even if small) to point at when asserting that maybe, just maybe, that whole Solar System Barycenter Conservation Of Planetary Angular Momentum thing could actually stir the sun up a bit. Be it “spin”, or “tides”, or “nutation”, or “precession”, or …

The problem is no longer “Can it?”. The problem is now “What happens to the COMBINED angular momentum of ALL the planets AND the sun as orbital positions change? How does this change the solar motions?”. And given that Angular Momentum is dominated by the Radius, there is A LOT of angular momentum to spread around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance

Types of resonance

In general, an orbital resonance may:

involve one or any combination of the orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity versus semimajor axis, or eccentricity versus orbit inclination).

act on any time scale from short term, commensurable with the orbit periods, to secular, measured in 104 to 106 years.

lead to either long term stabilization of the orbits or be the cause of their destabilization.

So any orbital feature can be involved, and that includes things like pole precession, nutation (“wobble”), etc. And this implied, through them, to spin.

A Lindblad resonance drives spiral density waves both in galaxies (where stars are subject to forcing by the spiral arms themselves) and in Saturn’s rings (where ring particles are subject to forcing by Saturn’s moons).

A secular resonance occurs when the precession of two orbits is synchronised (usually a precession of the perihelion or ascending node). A small body in secular resonance with a much larger one (e.g. a planet) will preecess at the same rate as the large body. Over long times (a million years, or so) a secular resonance will change the eccentricity and inclination of the small body.

I note in passing that “forcing” is starting to show up here, as well. IFF they mean “force” they ought to say so. If they mean a mathematical “forcing function” they ought to say that instead (and state the “given function” so we know what function they are talking about…)

Several prominent examples of secular resonance involve Saturn. A resonance between the precession of Saturn’s rotational axis and that of Neptune’s orbital axis (both of which have periods of about 1.87 million years) has been identified as the likely source of Saturn’s large axial tilt (26.7°). Initially, Saturn probably had a tilt closer to that of Jupiter (3.1°). The gradual depletion of the Kuiper belt would have decreased the precession rate of Neptune’s orbit; eventually, the frequencies matched, and Saturn’s axial precession was captured into the spin-orbit resonance, leading to an increase in Saturn’s obliquity. (The angular momentum of Neptune’s orbit is 104 times that of that of Saturn’s spin, and thus dominates the interaction.)

So Saturn’s ’tilt’ is being driven by the coupling of its spin to Neptune’s orbital precession.

I’m sure there are many more to be found, now that the jargon mismatch has been found out. Now that we see that in astronomy it’s called ‘resonance’ while everyone else calls it ‘spin orbit coupling’.

Some Notes On Angular Momentum

The wiki on Angular Momentum makes it clear why this all matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum

They also have a less math heavy and less technical intro to angular momentum here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_angular_momentum

In physics, angular momentum, moment of momentum, or rotational momentum is a conserved vector quantity that can be used to describe the overall state of a physical system. The angular momentum L of a particle with respect to some point of origin is

L = r x p
or
L = r x mv

where r is the particle’s position from the origin, p = mv is its linear momentum, and × denotes the cross product.

The key bits are that it’s a conserved property. That means angular momentum doesn’t just go away. You’ve got to turn it into something else. That it is directly proportional to radius (distance from the origin) means that smaller things can have a lot of angular momentum if they are a long ways away. Yes, Mass (m) matters, but make that Radius (r) longer and the mass can be smaller with the same impact. So the sun has a whole lot of Mass, but it’s Radius of orbit about the barycenter is very small. Saturn is much smaller, but oh does it have a long lever arm to work through.

The angular momentum of a system of particles (e.g. a rigid body) is the sum of angular momenta of the individual particles. For a rigid body rotating around an axis of symmetry (e.g. the fins of a ceiling fan), the angular momentum can be expressed as the product of the body’s moment of inertia I (a measure of an object’s resistance to changes in its rotation rate) and its angular velocity ω:

In this way, angular momentum is sometimes described as the rotational analog of linear momentum.

Angular momentum is conserved in a system where there is no net external torque, and its conservation helps explain many diverse phenomena. For example, the increase in rotational speed of a spinning figure skater as the skater’s arms are contracted is a consequence of conservation of angular momentum. The very high rotational rates of neutron stars can also be explained in terms of angular momentum conservation. Moreover, angular momentum conservation has numerous applications in physics and engineering (e.g. the gyrocompass).

There is just no getting away from the need to conserve angular momentum. Period. Also notice the emphasis on ‘rigid body’. But the sun is not rigid. I suspect that is the great mistaken simplification.

So when the solar masses change their positions relative to the barycenter (center of rotation of the combined solar system and the center of the sun’s “orbit”) the sun suffers a change of Angular Momentum as it’s Radius (r) has changed. And that must show up somewhere.

The question now becomes “Where does it go?”…

As the coupling can, per all I can find, happen at any scale and distance, there are many places it can go. But there is one place it can not go, and that is ‘away’. I suppose it could even end up in subatomic spin (though I can’t imagine how) or out in the outer planets as orbital perturbations. My ‘best guess’ would be that there is some minor change of the flow of “currents” on the Sun. Perhaps the Solar Conveyor Belt slowing down is the consequence? Or some other modulation such that the Landscheidt predictions have a direct mechanism.

The simple fact is that the sun is about 1 % of the solar system angular momentum. The changes “out there” are far larger and more important than its whole package. And everyone is simply ignoring that.

Though I do note that this page on the formation of the solar system talks about angular momentum exchanges with some frequency:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Solar_System_formation_and_evolution_hypotheses

For example:

Among the extrasolar planets discovered to date are planets the size of Jupiter or larger but possessing very short orbital periods of only a few days. Such planets would have to orbit very closely to their stars; so closely that their atmospheres would be gradually stripped away by solar radiation. There is no consensus on how to explain these so-called hot Jupiters, but one leading idea is that of planetary migration, similar to the process which is thought to have moved Uranus and Neptune to their current, distant orbit. Possible processes that cause the migration include orbital friction while the protoplanetary disc is still full of hydrogen and helium gas and exchange of angular momentum between giant planets and the particles in the protoplanetary disc.

For what it’s worth, looking at a google of “Solar orbital resonance” is more fruitful than the “spin orbit coupling” term, though it leads to a large number of articles describing the familiar cases such as orbital locking (The Moon always presenting the same face to earth).

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.5009

has an abstract for a paper from Cornell University Library:

Orbital Resonance and Solar Cycles
P.A.Semi
(Submitted on 29 Mar 2009)
We present an analysis of planetary moves, encoded in DE406 ephemerides.
We show resonance cycles between most planets in Solar System, of differing quality. The most precise resonance – between Earth and Venus, which not only stabilizes orbits of both planets, locks planet Venus rotation in tidal locking, but also affects the Sun:
This resonance group (E+V) also influences Sunspot cycles – the position of syzygy between Earth and Venus, when the barycenter of the resonance group most closely approaches the Sun and stops for some time, relative to Jupiter planet, well matches the Sunspot cycle of 11 years, not only for the last 400 years of measured Sunspot cycles, but also in 1000 years of historical record of “severe winters”. We show, how cycles in angular momentum of Earth and Venus planets match with the Sunspot cycle and how the main cycle in angular momentum of the whole Solar system (854-year cycle of Jupiter/Saturn) matches with climatologic data, assumed to show connection with Solar output power and insolation. We show the possible connections between E+V events and Solar global p-Mode frequency changes.
We futher show angular momentum tables and charts for individual planets, as encoded in DE405 and DE406 ephemerides. We show, that inner planets orbit on heliocentric trajectories whereas outer planets orbit on barycentric trajectories.

That looks to me like it might be this paper:

http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Orbital_Resonance_and_Solar_Cycles.pdf

Claims to find an Earth / Venus spin orbit resonance and that it influences solar cycles.

http://garymorris93.cwahi.net/weather/solar_variations.html

Has a nice long list of many known and some speculated solar cycles.

Shifting the search terms over to “Solar orbital resonance sunspot” you can even find an ‘electric universe’ explanation of what they think is going on:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=31556&sid=63bebd8d9364c276e036e95f7612ac53

In Conclusion

OK, I’m not going to settle anything tonight. Just show you what pops up when using ‘resonance’ instead of spin-orbit coupling. They are not exactly the same things, but related via the angular momentum of the solar system.

And that is the whole point here. To show that the conservation and swapping about of angular momentum in the solar system is not a new idea. It’s fundamental. And it can not be ignored in explaining the behavior of the sun. In my opinion, the “simplified cases” that work well in describing a planet in the context of the sun are not suited to the sun itself. Why? Because it IS so massive, it is NOT a point mass, it is NOT a rigid body, the percentage of change of the radius of rotation is so large, and the external angular momentum that can act on it is so much larger than the percentage of the angular momentum in the sun now. Basically, all the things that make simplifications work for small planets far from the sun make those simplifications wrong in the context of the sun itself.

In the end, just recognizing that spin-orbit coupling is not just for subatomic particles is a big step forward. And it is not just the ‘spin locking’ of a moon to its planets either. Perhaps best put another way. The simple case that says A moon can lock to its planet implies that a nearly chaotic and constantly changing set of forces from ALL the planets acting on the sun will assure it can NOT lock, but will always be a bit ‘off kilter’… but those forces can move mass around inside the sun.

Subscribe to feed

Advertisements

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 AGW Science and Background, Science Bits and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Planetary Spin Orbit Coupling Exists

  1. You are right.

    The Solar System is a system of interconnected parts.

    We in fact live in the outer layer of the Sun, the heliosphere.

    But we now live in an era of big government gobbledygook science, where common sense has been replaced by lock-step consensus science directed by those who distribute grant funds.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  2. PhilJourdan says:

    So what man accomplishes with spokes on a wheel, cosmic physics does with angular momentum.

    It seems that as a general rule, this solar system is very predictable and stable. Yet what astronomers are finding in other solar systems appear to be bordering on chaos (the exoplanets that are almost touching their suns). I guess if we were in that solar system, we would view it differently.

  3. Paul Hanlon says:

    Very interesting. I wonder what if any influence the Hildas, Trojans and Greeks have on the sun. While the asteroid belt is too well mixed, these phenomena seem to be clumped together.

    Although individually the asteroids would be small, if angular momentum rules, would they sum up to be something huge, or would they be considered a single body as regards their effect on the sun?

    It’s a very worthwhile field of enquiry, especially by somebody with an amazing lateral thinking ability, because somewhere in there is the mechanism of the Milankovich, and possibly the Ocean, Cycles.

  4. Jason Calley says:

    @E.M. This is a VERY interesting subject, and one with a huge number of implications. I had seen a post on this a year or so ago http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/spin-orbit-coupling-the-missing-angular-momentum-found/ but found myself mystified by the mechanism of how on Earth — or anywhere else! — you can transfer spin with no intermediate agent. I guess that I am still at the same place that people must have been when gravity was first proposed as a universal ordering mechanism. “Well, sure, the math works, but how does the Earth pull on the Moon when there are no strings connecting them together?” I seem to remember that even Newton (correctly) side stepped that question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo
    Today we cover over the question by hypothosising “fields” that extend through space. That being the case, do you know whether there is a “spin field” that does the work of transfering angular momentum from one body to another? I have not heard of such, but I can’t think of any other way to get a handle on it.

    You make a good point that the Sun is not a soldid body and that changing its angular momentum gets messy, mathmatically speaking. Of course, the Earth is not completely solid either. Is it possible that the low viscosity interior is affected? Ocean currents? Jet streams?

    You dig up some of the best cans of worms!

  5. @E.M.Smith:
    This says it all: due to electromagnetic interaction between the electron’s spin and the nucleus’s magnetic field
    “As above so below” reads the “tabula smaragdina”,…. but this is “alchemy” and not science, this is not “cool” for so educated and clever guys.
    However universal laws work, and, worst of all!. with simple numbers!

  6. Curt says:

    While you’re at it (and since you don’t have enough to look into already…), you may want to look into “atmospheric angular momentum”. It turns out that the “Z” component (i.e. about the polar axis) of AAM is almost perfectly correlated to the length of day (which varies in the millisecond range), and both are well correlated to many indices of global temperature.

    I have no idea what the direction of causation (if any) is, but it is very intriguing.

  7. Niels Bohr first noted the similarity between the atom and the solar system.

    We now have evidence that essentially all of the mass of the Sun is also in a tiny fraction of its volume, just as the mass of an atom in its nucleus.

    What we call “the Sun” is actually only a brightly glowing ball of waste products from the real Sun – a neutron star.

    See “Neutron Repulsion”, in press, APEIRON Journal,

    http://db.tt/9SrfTiZ

    and the video on neutron repulsion:

  8. alcuin says:

    I didn’t read all through your long post, but at the outset it sounds as though you want to search on nutation and precession of the equinox, the terms used by astronomers for the interaction of a planet’s rotation with the gravitational pull of other orbiting bodies. Wikipedia has references.

  9. Ruhroh says:

    Did anyone else’s ‘Public Television’ station choose to run the Apollo documentary last night after the SOTA?

    Enjoyed the film a lot, but I wonder about the timing?

    Sputnik moment? Fast Trains? Huh?

    RR

  10. kuhnkat says:

    I would hesitate to suggest this, except I was just reading a couple of dummies tomes on quantum mechanics. Apparently spin at the atomic level has nothing to do with rotation of a mass about its center. It is a misnomer.

    Based on the uncertainty principle and other issues there is apparently no actual orbits of electrons around the nucleus either.

    Very interesting article anyway as the science is there whether it scales down or not.

  11. P.G. Sharrow says:

    This mass / inertia, angular momentum coupling is the secret to everything. Electromagnetics and gravity are indicators but are not the whole thing.

    Modern science is too compartmentalized to see the whole picture.

    The idea that “that which is small is very different then that which is large” is wrong, is just poor understanding of all of the facts.

    The construction of a proton includes the angular momentum in its parts. That internal spin helps create its mass/inertia in its environment. Nothing is totally idependent, everything is connected. Every electron feels the effects on every other electron. Every electron effects the behavior of its proton. The proton has the most mass/inertia effect and the electron the most charge effect on the environment pg

  12. P.G. Sharrow says:

    on 26 January 2011 at 11:53 am kuhnkat

    “Based on the uncertainty principle and other issues there is apparently no actual orbits of electrons around the nucleus either.”

    Actually the reason there is no electron orbit around the nucleus is there is no electron. there is an “electron shell”, a shell of charge or force field, created by the contents of the proton.

    The “electron” is a quanta of charge energy and not a real thing. pg

  13. E.M.Smith says:

    @kuhnkat:

    Yeah, “spin” has many meanings. That was part of my frustration. I kept running into the subatomic “spin” that isn’t quite the same as rotation when I was looking for “spin” that was rotation. Then again, at that level we don’t really have a clue what the things actually are. We’ve just made up funny names to put on ideas we’ve created to match the patterns we’ve seen at the macro level.

    (I think I’m ending up in agreement with the notion that AGW skepticism has resulted in a whole lot more questioning of other ‘settled science’ and seeing a lot more of it as “turf wars redux”… )

    So, does an electron actually rotate? Does it exist at all? Is a photon a particle or a wave function? Yeah, I dodged those questions. Only so much turf I can stretch me over in one night before I discover it’s 5 AM and time to get up but I havn’t been to bed yet…

    The part I cared about was the point that Angular Momentum as I understood it was operative. It must be conserved. It can go to any orbital ‘feature’. It can move between bodies that are graviationally linked. And when it comes to the Sun, those things we ‘assume’ to simplify the problem simply are wrong. It isn’t a point mass. It isn’t a solid. It isn’t in a simple rotation about a stationary point. It isn’t…

    At any rate, I’ve run the “money bucket” a bit low during the last couple of holiday months of “research” and need to start paying more attention to markets again. Need a refill (or at least a ‘snack’ ;-) We look to have entered a ‘slow steady rise’ in stocks and that’s a good time to trade (as more things are ‘rollers’… take a 1% growth, spread it over a year and you don’t see much, but the Market Maker needs to eat so they run it up / down / up / down / up …. with a net 1% at the end of the year but lots of trades along the way. But that takes more nearly daily attention…)

    So for a while, at least, I need to appy the disicpline to set aside some of the more interesting lines of “investigation” part of the time and go back to the money trough…

    But at least for now, I’ve anchored a couple of points, put in a few more handholds, got a nice place to pitch the tent on the “Angular Momentum” mountain, and can let it rest a bit…

    @alcuin:

    Nutation and Precesion are parts of it. I was particularly looking for how changes of orbital angular momentum could end up in changes of rotation of the body, Havn’t got it exactly, but ‘pretty close’. Along the way, yes, you keep running into nutation and precession. They are interesting, but as you pointed out, pretty well explored, so I took the “path less worn”.

    I’d also started down the nutation / precession road, and ran right into the planets screwing with each other and that lead to the Our Planets posting as I realized that there was A LOT of rotating mass in all those things NOT counted as “planets” and as we’ve seen, small mass at long radius has a lot of Angular Momentum in it.

    Or, short form: Asteroids, Trojans, Ceres, Xena. They ALL matter to A.M. The Jupiter Trojans alone are about as much mass as the Asteroids (that are a lot too). Yeah, you just assert that “it all averages out” but I think that’s a bit too much hand waving and I’d rather ‘give it a think’ before leaping off that cliff of conclusion….

    @all:

    So a bunch of these things have entered “orbital resonance” with each other, but some of it is chaotic, and as it all slops around, the sun gets tugged back and forth, and that’s where I think it simplifies just enough to “get clue”.

    Just look at the sun vs barycenter (which is really just the net of all those other forces averaging to a hypothetical combined net vector) and see what actually happens.

    Observe. Speculate. Thesis to prediction. Test…

    And what I’m seeing is confirmation of Landscheidt…

    And that is sending me back to the next step (that will likely be in a couple of months after I’ve got the money bucket back in shape) of:

    What is the Angular Momentum process in a NON-point source FLUID rotating body about a MOVING point of orbit? That sometimes in inside it’s surface and sometimes outside.

    I fear the answer to that is going to make my head hurt…

    but so far I’ve not found anything that describes it or even attempts to analyse it. Stuff is just full of ‘assumptions that are not real’ like point sources and solid bodies.

    And I don’t even want to think about electrical and magnetic influences yet…. (though I know I must…)

    Basically, take that ball of liquid sodium that those folks ‘spun up’ and got a load of magnetic chaos out of; then put it on a table and jerk it around and see what happens…

    (I know, it’s not exactly the same, as the moving table is putting the forces in from outside to the liquid surface while gravity is pulling each atom individually. It’s a metaphore…)

    For now, though, I’m short slept and need to let my brain think about things like sun, seeds, bunnies, coffee ;-)

  14. Hi E.M.

    Consider this
    http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim1/

    I did compute with vectors & all. Unless someone can show me something new about it, I am sure it is a dead end.

    In the solar system, gravity makes sure the orbits are exactly perturbed to keep the AM of the system constant.

    There really isn’t any mechanism to transfer orbital AM to spin AM, except for tides.

  15. kuhnkat says:

    OK, I am not as up on physics as others so have a more basic view.

    Isn’t angular momentum a name given to the resolution of vectors from momemtum, spin, gravity, and electromagnetic effects?

    That is, all these things affect each particle or wave individually and they interact so the result of all those individual forces is angular momentum?

    (PS, not sure if I can swallow quantum physics. The theory of Phlogiston explained fire very well until it was superseded etc. etc.)

  16. I will notify my friend , Dr. Kiril Panov, former director of the Institute of Astronomy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences of this blog.

    He has expressed Bode’s law.

    Oliver

  17. P.G. Sharrow says:

    kuhnkat ; ” Isn’t angular momentum a name given to the resolution of vectors from momemtum, spin, gravity, and electromagnetic effects?”

    Once again you “see” very well.

    A gyro that is spinning and not moving has extra mass/inertia in one dimension. This is because of AM (angular momentum) of the spinning and not moving matter. If the holder of the gyro is spun in a second motion another dimension of mass/inertia is added. Modern electronic devices can read the spin of the atomic gyros to determine changes of direction and acceleration.

    Your connection of electromagnetic effects is something that has not yet been addressed and needs to be. One more thing for me to do. pg

  18. Baa Humbug says:

    I’ve read a number of papers by Dr Theodor Landscheidt at the John L Daly site. Unfortunately I’m unable to comprehend as well as I would like.

    Landscheidt explains the stability of the solar system is due to the physical process called the Golden Section. It generally makes sense to me without grasping the fine detail.

    He seems to have been able to predict ENSO events (better than most) by predicting solar activity using the Golden Section. Big Hands, Little Hands, Big Fingers, Little Fingers.

    E M you mentioned Landscheidt in your post. It would be wonderful if you would kindly summarise Landscheidt for near dummies like me.

    p.s. Forces between the sun and planets are very much like the forces between a hammer thrower athlete and the hammer are they not?

  19. Rhodes Fairbridge did some work on the barycentre and made the observation there was a 90,000 plus year period associated with the Sun moving around the barycentre. I have wondered if there might be a connection between this period and the 100,000 year cycle found in ice cores and ocean sediment cores, rather than a connection with global temperatures per Milankovitch and eccentricity. Ice cores show the temperature on Greenland for instance see sawed up and down quite a bit during the last 70,000 years or so which is not reflected in sediment cores – at least as far as they are presented in the literature.

  20. E.M.Smith says:

    @Baa Humbug:

    Landescheidt in a nutshell: Planets have a lot of Angular Momentum due to the long radius. This moves the sun around the barycenter (stiring up the sun, or not) and that can cause more or less solar output. This then correlates nicely with weather patterns for long periods of time. OK, just accept that, and use it to make predictions. Predictions that continue to be right years (decades?) after he made them and after his death. Could be just luck, could be some other mechanism. He mostly just looked at planetary positions without much care on the mechanism side.

    For GRAVITY the Sun is the Hammer Thrower, thanks to that R term in Angular Momentum it is the Hammer with only 1% of solar system Angular Momentum. Whether this matters or not is the question that Landescheidt answered “yes” and the standard model answers “no”. If Landescheidt is shown correct, the question then becomes “How?” And that’s what I’m dancing around admiring at the moment. The potential “hows”.

    Basically, for Gravity, all that counts is M. (until at relativistic speeds). For Angular Momentum it is MV * R and for the Sun, the M is very very large, but for Orbital Angular Momentum the V is pretty small (nearly nothing or perhaps even negative when it goes through the retrograde part?) and the R is also nearly nothing as it is sometimes inside the sun (though it still has the rotational AM). Now take something like Jupiter. Pretty good M, pretty fast V, really big R… lots of AM…

    So if gravity is all that matters, the Sun is the Gorilla.
    If Angular Momentum matteres, the Sun is a 1% wimp.

    @Carsten:

    I’ll take a look shortly. Right now in catch up mode on a couple of things… Thanks!

    If you have actually shown that there is no spin-orbit rate couple, frankly, I’ll be happy as I can stop thinking about it ;-) but that still leaves the issue of what is the mechanism that allows the strong correlations to work…

  21. Baa Humbug says:

    Thnks EM

  22. David says:

    Some questions regarding lunisol precession theory and climate.

    We know that Sunlight, falling on the Earth when it’s about 3,000,000 miles closer to the Sun in January, is about 7% more intense than in July. The Northern hemisphere is about 60.7% water and 39.3% land. The Southern hemisphere is about 80.9% water and 19.1% land. So in January at perihelion, close to an additional 90 W-M2 falls on far more ocean then at aphelion where significantly reduced (as compared to any CO2 doubling) TSI falls on almost 40% land. This has some well known effects.

    Because the Northern Hemisphere has more land which heats easier then water most people state that the Earth’s average temperature is about 4 degrees F higher in July than January, when in fact they should be stating that the ATMOSPHERE is 4 degrees higher in July. In January this extra SW energy is being pumped into the oceans where the “residence time” within the Earth’s ocean land and atmosphere is the longest. There are also other factors, such as the Northern hemispheres winter increase in albedo exceeds the southern hemisphere’s winter albedo due to the far larger northern hemisphere land mass. So at perihelion we have a permanent loss to space of ? W/2m SWR due to increased albedo and a temporairy loss of SWR to the atmosphere, as at perihelion the SWR is falling on far more ocean, where it is absorbed into the oceans for far longer then if that SWR fell on land. Do these balance (unlikely) or is the earth gaining or losing energy during perihelion? This is one question but not the most interesting to me.

    According to Lunisol precession theory this flux between hemispheres reverses every 12,000 or so years. (The rate of precession is increasing so we do not know the exact time frame) It appears that this flux reversal should create very different climate over 12,000 year periods. To my understanding it does not. Of course there are many cycles in climate, and how they all interact is as unclear as our understanding of the individual processes if they were isolated, which of course they are not, yet this large repetitive flux should register. So my more interesting question is twofold. What would the effect of this reversal be? And two, if this effect is historically missing, does it lead credence to this very non mainstream proposition.
    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.binaryresearchinstitute.org%2F&ei=InVBTdzLNZPQsAPa16G6Cg&usg=AFQjCNHwR2J2j90PGGhyxMYr5twpGQzykw&sig2=dDaGZYhrN8c1QsOE8SzMUw

    It is a fascinating read if you give it some time. I do not have either the science or mathematical background to evaluate the celestial mechanics involved so I would love to receive your take on this when you find the time, of course if you find the time. However I think you will find it interesting indeed and your mind is open more then most to at least read it thoughtfully.

  23. Has anyone measured or calculated the tidal shifts in air, compared to those in ocean water and in “solid” rock?

    I ask because what we commonly call “the Sun” (the photosphere) is very loosely connected with the tiny, dense energetic core that must be shifting around inside “the Sun” to produce the observed cycles of solar surface activity.

    The average density in the photosphere is ~10^-6 g/cm^3. In the core of the Sun the density is over 20 orders of magnitude higher, ~10^+15 g/cm^3.

    Is it not the shift of one relative to the other that produces solar cycles of magnetic fields that protrude through the photosphere as sunspots?

    Oliver

  24. What does make those pebbles go round and round, having spin?

  25. How is it power transmitted from one pebble to the other to make them so beautifully spin?

  26. What does it move my fingers to type, my eyes to see or my heart to beat?

  27. God just made two laws to govern upon the world, then some very peculiar being on that planet called earth, called by them “clever politicians” added thousands of amendments; by now reality has become totally incomprehensible for those ill fated beings.

  28. @P.G. Sharrow
    It´s a matter of tags: What if to the old philosophers conception of “atom”we give it the new name of “quantum”?
    We just want to stick to a “permanent” reality only by psychological reasons. We are scare of reality, however we should not.

  29. We have been digging too much, into every time more little “pebbles”, as stubborn Fred flintstones, but there is no need to-and btw, there is no “bottom”; then let´s agree on workable dimensions (sizes) both ways, upwards and downwards.
    A workable hypothesis then is that of acting charges.

  30. P.G. Sharrow says:

    @Adolfo Giurfa: Are we afraid of reality?

    I find that there is a point where physics meets psychics. The soul of the universe is GOD or GOD is the soul of the universe.

    Everything has a soul and is part of the whole. pg

  31. P.G. Sharrow says:

    @Adolfo Giurfa; I prefer to start with Aether. It demonstrates mass / inertia and charge. Every thing starts from that point. All forces, fields and matter begin with “That Which Is.” pg

  32. P.G. Sharrow says:

    @Oliver K. Manuel: I have been working with a plot for seismic cross section of the sun that I posted on the “tallbloke”site;

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/21

    I can definitely see the solid core, core transistion to liquid metal and the “atmosphere” or photosphere as well as two horizons of activity in the liquid levels. I would suspect neutron creation and decay in the lower level and circulations in the upper level as causes of these two horizons.

    Looks like I still buy most of your position. The suns core is very neutron rich and solid and that energy and hydrogen is produced from its surface. But I still hold with neutron creation as well as decay. pg

  33. Slacko says:

    Barycentric vs Heliocentric.
    It’s not difficult to see why the inner planets cannot be barycentric. Imagine the orbit of the Earth is tilted such that it is perpendicular to a line joining Jupiter and the Sun.
    Now of course, the Earth cannot fail to orbit the barycentre. But three years later as Jupiter passes our plane of orbit, the barycentre has become an impossible target, and the focus of orbit has shifted very close to the heliocentre. This shift exerts a profound perturbation on our orbital plane, decreasing markedly as our plane approaches conformity with that of Jupiter.

    @EMS:
    … but those forces can move mass around inside the sun.

    @EMS:
    Just look at the sun vs barycenter (which is really just the net of all those other forces averaging to a hypothetical combined net vector) and see what actually happens.

    Correct — “a hypothetical net vector.”

    @EMS:
    What is the Angular Momentum process in a NON-point source FLUID rotating body about a MOVING point of orbit? That sometimes is inside it’s surface and sometimes outside. I fear the answer to that is going to make my head hurt but so far I’ve not found anything that describes it or even attempts to analyse it.

    And yet you’re still thinking of the barycentre as a hook in the jaw of a sunspot to drag it to the surface of the photosphere or drop it into the abyss of a coronal hole. The barycentre doesn’t have that kind of function. The tidal forces of gravitational interaction are more likely to account for the observed changes and relieve the pressure on your brain at the same time. It’s the tidal gravitional interaction that tranfers orbital angular momentum of planets to rotational angular momentum of the Sun.

    Consider that a straight-line alignment of all planets with the sun will result in a massive king tide, and that must have an effect on mass ejections, solar wind, sunspots, holes, flares, etc. It should make no difference whether the barycentre is inside or outside the sun. It’s just the balance point of the total mass distribution of the whole system at any particular time, possibly offset by a relativistic time dilation associated with each of the moving vectors.

  34. E.M.Smith says:

    @Slako:

    Um, I’m specifically NOT saying that the barycenter does anyting at all to a sunspot to “drag it to the surface” or to “drop it into the abyss”. I’m saying it looks like a much more complex process (fluid, non-point source) than all the AM physics I was ever taught and that makes it hard; hard enough that I’d specifically NOT hazard a guess as to what it really will be (BUT given the relaxation of the usual simplyfying assumptions of rigid body and point source it’s likely NOT what I’m used to seeing nor calculating in physics class…)

    So I’d like to see an “existence proof” or the math of spinning fluid non-point source AM calculations prior to just assuming it’s going to be ‘nothing but the tide’… And given that our PDO has been linked to LOD changes I think there is evidence for liquids not acting like solids…

    So we know that changes of orbital forces can cause our orbit to precess, our pole to nutate, our eccentricity to change, our… and when it comes to the sun we say “ignore all that” ??? Wha?

    In short: I’m not buying any of the “simplifying assumptions” in the face of an existence proof that planetary gravitational forces already change orbital mechanics on solid bodies and they have very direct weather and climate impacts… so why would they have no impact on “solar weather”? Maybe it is all just tidal mediated, but in that case I’d like to see something that links observation of solar tides to observations of changed output…

    It just smells like too much Cherry Lip Gloss to me… (but I’m open to a demonstration that ‘nothing happens’. It’s just that all the history shows “something happens”…)

    In short: Don’t turn befuddlement into positive assertion.

  35. E.M.Smith says:

    An interesting paper that postulates a spin-orbit coupling between jovian / gas giant orbits and solar spin: From 2007-8 era, so preceding my speculations. Only found it now, though:

    a bit repetitive ( in the way of most such: abstract, body, summary…) and does not find a ‘mechanism’ but has good stuff in it about sizes.

  36. A I Arbab says:

    Please look at this site and you will find what you think of……http://www.scirp.org/journal/jmp/

    [ REPLY: This comment has some ‘spam attributes’ in that the link “asked about” is the same as the email of the poster. Still, I’m letting it through as it looks like “nice SPAM” ;-) I’m generally in favor of ‘open access’ science and this looks to be what they do. -E.M.Smith ]

Comments are closed.