Orbital Subtraction and mean anomalies means?

Over on WUWT, there was an interesting comment burried down in yet another long discussion thread.

I’m pulling it up here as I found it interesting, but a little unclear, and doubt that it will be clarified there.


August 16, 2015 at 12:04 pm Edit

Each point is an orbital subtraction calculation of the mean anomalies of four planets Jupiter, Mars, Earth and Venus, taken on the 1st of January every two years from 1900-2012..

The shape of the orbital subtraction points resemble the shape of the ssn record.

I’m not clear on what an “orbital subtraction point” might be, and don’t have time to chase it down right now, but thought maybe someone could enlighten (or maybe I can entice ‘Sparks’ into an expanded bit of text here).

I visualize it as taking some kind of baseline starting point (maybe a line toward the sun on the sun side?) and then “subtracting” the degrees away from it for each planet and making a net graph? A formula would have been helpful… Also an A/B of actual sunspots vs the plot… Still, the graph that is, is very interesting…

Subscribe to feed

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 Earth Sciences, Science Bits and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Orbital Subtraction and mean anomalies means?

  1. A C Osborn says:

    You may find some enlightenment over at TallBloke’s, take a look at Suggestions-13 here,

  2. omanuel says:

    Thank you for posting this. There is a lot of prejudice against the idea that Earth’s climate is linked to sunspot activity, but the empirical fact is that the Farmer’s Almanac is a lot more trustworthy than predictions by Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC.

    Today solar activity is declining and we are now ill-prepared to anticipate the future because government science has focused on hiding the source of energy in the Sun after 1945.

    There is little or no doubt the core of the Sun is a pulsar that makes and discards Hydrogen to interstellar space. Unless we get honest about flaws in the Standard Solar Model, there is little use deceiving ourselves about understanding how the Sun influences Earth’s climate.

  3. omanuel says:

    Sorry to be so blunt, but the iron-rich interior of the Sun:

    1. Was consensus science in 1945
    2. Changed without cause in 1946
    3. Confirmed by 1969 Apollo Mission
    4. Confirmed by 1995 Galileo Probe
    5. Is still hidden from the public by:


  4. oldbrew says:

    Mean anomaly is explained here, or at least they have a stab at it.

  5. Sparks says:

    Thanks for your interest in this graph Chiefio..

    You needn’t give yourself a head ache working out planetary mean anomalies to reproduce this work, there are tools that will accurately calculate these for each planet.

    The idea behind this research is whether or not the planets regulate or influence solar activity,
    keeping in mind that the suns polar field (north and south poles) rotate 360 degrees around it’s longitude as they move toward the suns equator and they also reverse 360 along it’s latitude. As both polarities of the polar field (north [-] and south [+]) head toward the suns equator and begin interacting with each other then the number of sunspots increase, and when they move away from each other from the equator sunspot numbers begin to decrease until both polarities rest at the geographic poler regions, it is this timing in the sunspot record that I am comparing to the orbital subtraction of planetary mean anomalies.

    The ‘orbital subtraction’ is a method to work out the difference between planetary orbits and to plot a change in the orbits of two or more planets over a period of time.
    after collecting the mean anomaly of Jupiter, Earth and Venus, Mars on the 1st of January every two years from 1900-2012 the formula from here is a very straight forward subtraction of planetary mean anomalies.

    Jupiter Earth J – E
    165 – 359.1 = 194.1

    Venus Mars V – M
    213.6 – 319.8 = 106.2

    Orbital subtraction value
    JE – VM = 88.1

    The spread sheet can be downloaded here.

    This is a graph I completed manually this week of 400 years of data.

    Another graph I’m working on using the same method, this one is of the outer planets Neptune, Uranus and Jupiter.

  6. E.M.Smith says:


    Thanks for the pointer to where I can do my homework ;-)


    Thanks for the pointer to the explanation (even if it is a wiki… ;-)


    I think the problem is one of time scale. The sun is a pulsar on hundred year scales. Folks don’t think of that as pulsing…


    Yes, very useful. Thanks!

  7. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Sparks; Interesting concept. The sun not only rotates laterally but longitudinally.

    As I pondered inertia/mass effects caused by the atomic structure as well as subatomic “particles” It appeared to me that they moved in 3 dimensions. That is they spun about an axis, rotated about some other center-line, as they traveled in a line.

    Maybe the sun is a giant version of a Proton.

    GOD does seem to use the same model over and over throughout creation ;-)…pg

  8. Larry Ledwick says:

    Hmmmm — someone testing or spoofing the market for a quick profit? – or – just a prank?


  9. Sparks says:

    Just a note on OManuel’s pulsar/sun theory, pulsars are rotating neutron stars that have very strong polar fields, they are basically remnants of gas giants that have went supernova or formed when a binary star strips the outer layers of it’s neighbour until all that’s left is it’s nucleolus, they are similar to our sun’s rotating polar field but on a much larger scale, if our sun had a neutron star at it’s core, the scale of this neutron stars polar field would be so enormous that it would have caused the shedding the outer layers of the sun millions of years ago, and ripped through our solar system like a hot knife through butter.
    Our suns polar field is formed by way of E=mc2 at the core, we know it’s mass by how much our sun bends light, if the suns mass was greater, then the strength of the polar field would also be greater, unlike the current mainstream “dynamo” theory that suggests that the sun produces it’s polar field due to the distance of it’s equator being slightly greater than the distance between it’s poles, causing a miraculous self-regulating, self-rotating and self-reversing polar field without any influence upon it whatsoever.
    My own opinion is that the sun’s polar field is produced by way of E=mc2 in relation to is mass and composition and that it’s polar field is nudged into rotating and reversing by it’s orbiting planets and as the polar fields begins reversing it causes the appearance of a “dynamo” producing the regular cycles of activity, this is very important, It is a very strong explanation for what causes Ice ages, if the orbits change enough where they are unable to nudge the reversal of the suns polar field and it remains at the geographic polar regions for extended periods of time, there would be no sunspot cycles there would be no increase in an the various radiation and storms or even intense aurora associated with sunspots over the sequential 11 year cycles, this flat line in solar activity would undoubtedly have a major impact on planetary temperatures, there would also be other side effects of having no rotating, reversing polar field as the polar field sweeps past the planets orbits, such as an increase in meteor activity as the sun quickly dissipates ice particles from the short period comets in our solar system that crosses Earths path, (note: there have been astronomy papers written about how the intensity of meteor showers were in decline during the later half of the 20th century, this coincides with the observed increase in solar cycle activity) and there will also be an increase in cosmic radiation reaching our planet and what ever effect’s this has on earths atmosphere, if any?

    The sun to an observer may have the symptoms of a “dynamo” or a “pulsar” with heavily defended theories, but simply put, it’s a star that has planets that interact with it’s polar field on a very primitive and basic level.

    P.s The core of the sun and it’s polar field, if scaled down enormously from an neutron star, could be in principle considered a very weak pulsar (pulsating radio star) because in reality ‘pulsars’ do not pulse, the are very dense stars with extremely strong polar fields that rotate at an incredible speed and we detect the radio emissions from it’s polar field as pulses. ;)

  10. omanuel says:

    Sparks, thanks for your comment.

    The data and other observations cited seem to leave no viable alternative to the pulsar-centered Sun that Peter Toth first proposed in 1977. However, you are welcomed and encouraged to try.

  11. omanuel says:

    @E.M. Smith

    You are right. The solar system has evolved and changed since birth five billion years (5 Ga) ago.

    I. Five Ga ago the solar system probably looked like the Crab Nebula or the remains of SN 1987A. An easily recognizable pulsar was orbited by supernova debris. In the equatorial plane, chemical layers from the star were preserved H/He|C|O|Si|S|Fe/Ni and formed the
    1. Giant, gaseous outer planets
    2. Silicates of stone meteorites and mantles of the inner planets
    3. Troilite (FeS) meteorite inclusions and outer part of Earth’s core
    4. Nickel/iron meteorites and central iron cores of the inner planets. The pulsar emitted high-energy, short-wavelength radiation.

    II. ~3.5 Ga ago, Earth had accreted in layers and the upper mantle melted to form the atmosphere and oceans. By that time waste products –H/He – had accumulated in the pulsar’s strong gravitational field to moderate cosmic rays into the ultra-violet light that supported the earliest form of life.

    III. ~500 yr ago, Copernicus found a giant fountain of energy at the gravitational center of the solar system. Popes didn’t like it then and other tyrants don’t like it now, but that pulsar is the creator, destroyer and sustainer of every atom, life and planet in the solar system today.

    In the 2012 paper, “Neutron repulsion,” it is explained that the interior of the Sun evolved on one side and life evolved on one side of the photosphere for the past 3.5 Ga.


  12. omanuel says:

    References #44 and #45, report that the basic period of pulsation of the Sun was 0=160.0101±0.0001 min when the 1996 paper was written and 159.9662±0.0006 min when the 1977 paper was written.

  13. omanuel says:

    Here is a link to the 2011 paper “Neutron repulsion” that describes the origin and evolution of life (outside the photosphere) after 3.5 Ga ago, and the Sun’s continued evolution into its present status as a “normal” star,after 5 Ga. http://tinyurl.com/nul85xq

Comments are closed.