Robittybob1

I understand where you are coming from , but go back to the ant on the hammer head and he is trying to calculate gravity strength does he only consider the CoM of the head or should he use the CoM of the hammer?

What sentence shows there is no compression at those two distances? "2,000 and 4,500."

OK so what you have made me think about is what bearing has the barycenter got when approached from multiple angles. They often use the example of a hammer for it has a heavy head end and a lighter handle, but when anyone works out it CoM that is the same CoM no matter from which angle you look at the hammer, and I suppose that too includes the situation of an ant walking across the head. I'm struggling to accept this but is it wrong? Now when you ask "Why does simply applying gravitational attraction not account for the sun's motion?" That is exactly what I'm proposing but just had my doubts that those forces are enough to make the Sun orbit the SSB if you make the SSB the FoR. I was covering for the occasional situation where the SSB was at the center of mass of the Sun. Who is the authority to determine this "For the SSB this only applies to gravitational interactions between this solar system and other stars. Inside the solar system, Newtonian gravitation is calculated between bodies and other bodies - the SSB is not used for Newtonian forces."? I'm just reading general information but have you got a reference of authority about this?

I know the CoM or the SSB or any barycenter doesn't have all the mass. When using the Newtonian gravitational force formula one says all the mass is at the CoM and that is at r distance between them, now if the shape of the object is irregular and you calculate the CoM and it just happens to be in empty space that is still the spot from which the combined gravity force will be appearing to come from. Yes I understand that, and that is why I am proposing my frame of reference is the "RB spot", which is equivalent to the spot central to all the wobble of the Sun. Is that a valid FoR?

The final sentence of the abstract was about the only one I understood I liked the use of the words "not on ... solid ground". That was quite poetical really when we are talking about shifting barycenters and the like.

I think the max compression is at 2,000 and 4,500.

I can see your point. The barycenter between the Earth and the moon (EMB) is always shifting as the Moon orbits the Earth. OK the ISS doesn't immediately orbit the EMB but each time it passes between the Earth and the Moon is the ISS orbit being given a nudge toward a different orbit? The effect could what is called "Third Body Perturbation" http://ocw.upm.es/ingenieria-aeroespacial/modeling-the-space-environment/contenidos/material-de-clase/mse05_3rdbody.pdf It isn't the easiest subject but Wikipedia has this to say So this might be one of the many reasons satellites fall back to Earth.

I didn't think I'd be back so soon but I have fond a 11 year resonance! SkyMarvels™ SOLAR SYSTEM BARYCENTER (celestia celestia4all) 3:15 into the video if reads: Now if the magnetic field in the Sun is in any way similar to the Earth's magnetic field I can see it would just keep a constant polarity. I found that with the Earth situation too, I could figure out a mechanism to generate a magnetic field but it is not so easy to get a mechanism to reverse and to say why it would reverse.

To me what you have just said sounds wrong, and I know it will come as a shock but I do read a lot of your posts and you are usually right but this time I'm sorry, I think you're wrong. Now, why I think you are wrong is that taking the top situation if the angle is any amount between 0 and 90 degrees what is it then? Are you saying it depends on the angle? In the second situation there is a known mechanism for the transfer of momentum and energy between the Earth and the Moon (gravitational tidal acceleration) but what is the mechanism for transferring the momentum to and from the Sun? Note: in my idea the Sun wobbles so even I add and subtract energy to and from the Sun but that is simply by applying gravitational attraction, F=ma i.e the combined gravitational attraction of the remainder of the SS will apply a gravitational force to the Sun and hence it will accelerate, the ever changing strength and direction of this force wobbles the Sun's position. [i'd be willing to reconsider for at what point is the SSB not involved? If you move an object on Earth the gravitational pull from the Sun or the SSB is rather insignificant, but even then it could still be calculated for accuracy.]

All the sites will tell you the planets are orbiting the SSB which is so close to the Sun that in the purposes of general discussion one would say they orbit the Sun but on a more accurate level they orbit the SSB. So why would you doubt that? How could you change the Gravitational force vector away from the SSB? I was just testing whether it was possible to make the greater mass (99% of the Solar System) start orbiting for that to me would need a fairly constant orbital energy. When the SSB and the center of mass of the Sun coincide does the Sun in fact have any orbital energy then? Yet some years later it will be found to be "orbiting" at a distance to the SSB, so where did this orbital energy come from?

I was really taken by surprise as to what you think I said, but if it is the case I have obviously not expressed my ideas clearly enough, yet Whiskers in general understood and discussed the idea fairly well. I have proposed the barycenter (SSB) orbits the Sun and the Sun is also a movable object wobbling about the "RB Spot".

I am working off a hunch, and completely out of my depth but I am trying my best to understand some of it. OK so so we have to combine the tidal effects with the SS barycenter and see if that can produce a 11 year resonance? That was the idea to begin with but the barycenter seems just to give a 11.86 year rhythm but what happens if the effects of tidal acceleration have on the Sun? Thanks Janus and Imatfaal. I've got to work on my math skills first. I'm done here for a while.

I just hope some bright-spark picks it up and runs with it.

I might not think it is the only right answer but it is more right than angular acceleration for that is definitely wrong. Angular velocity is the change of angle (in radians) over time. and that is constant by the description of the situation.

I thought I'd give you a plus 1 for making me laugh, at the end of a difficult day. Thanks for the interaction, I found your posts quite helpful. Good luck.

That certainly shows how complex it gets It is one thing for the mathematicians to "adjust the barycentric location and velocity of the Sun". In my model I would invent this other spot (origin of the coordinates) and have the Sun move location and velocity from there but also allow the CoM to orbit the Sun. Probably not quite said correctly but if you have followed the thread you would know what I mean, but the maths of it are probably beyond me at this stage. The analogy I was thinking of was a boat tied to a mooring in a flowing ebbing current, the current being strong enough to drag the mooring mass to and fro but not very far. So the planets etc circulating the Sun represents the current, the boat would represent the SSB, and the Mooring weight represents the Sun, and the amount it is dragged from spot X is the "wobble". This would also mean that there is some reaction time involved as well to get the sideways motion of the mass of the sun there would need to be angled vector forces to cause this to happen. (like towing a weight via a rubber band to get the weight to move in a circular motion there would need to be tension applied ahead of the radial lines from the center of the circle

That is not an easy concept. If the Earth orbits the Sun once a year what is the average position? You could work out its average distance from the Sun. Then what would you do to say something about its average position?

But can't everything (except EM radiation) be considered at rest WRT itself? That becomes the basis of this discussion , where I was trying to show (even though it is at rest to itself) it is not at rest to the rest of the Solar System and in particular the Sun.

I did see some coordinate system that used the Solar System, I read the word but left it at that. It might have been the following, so I suppose you define your starting point in time and measure movements from then. So that must be using the SSB as the fixed point. I'll have to brush up on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_Dynamical_Time

OK. As two masses separate the CoM (barycenter) shifts away from the heaviest body, but their gravitational effects will diminish at a rate proportion to the inverse square of the total distance between the centers of the masses (considered separately). So the position of the CoM (barycenter) has little to do with the strength of the tidal force, but it will define the direction at least. But when we are talking about the combined SSB this point does not need to be on a line between any particular planet* and the Sun, so the period the SSB orbits the Sun could be different than the periodicity of any particular planet and the combined tidal forces on the Sun would vary too, period by period, depending on the position of the planets. * No particular planet but the one with the strongest gravitational acceleration on the Sun will have the largest influence on its position.

That is what someone needs to do. Was that other poster correct? It all takes time to follow up but I get the feeling you are only correcting me, but miss the errors in what the others are saying. Now is this true? So I should quote what was said by the other poster and see if you agree/disagree with him, for from memory you and him were at odds over the importance of the inner planets? So you really think they are separate issues? They both rely on mass and gravity so how can they be that different?

It shows we need to be physically correct and to keep it simple. If the Sun has 99% of the mass of the SS how is the last 1% going to make it orbit anything real or unreal. The SSB is a calculated point so it is not a physical object but a point in space that moves or is it stationary WRT the SS? Just my instant impression is that it is a moving point. OK make an object as massive as the Sun and make it orbit a constantly moving point, will that take kinetic energy to be added and subtracted? We can say if Jupiter is moved to a different distance the SSB will move but to do that will take an enormous amount of energy applied to the planet, but you didn't do anything to the Sun yet we say it is orbiting a different barycenter, I nearly see your point. OK

Yet someone else on this forum said the inner planets were significant, did I misunderstand them? Look the whole idea could be wrong, but in the meantime we will learn some of the key aspects of the Sun's magnetic field.

The ISS orbits the earth, does it not. You never hear anyone saying "it is the relative motion of the Earth to the ISS that keeps it in space". Can you really try to turn the discussion into one of relative motion? It could be, but if it is and that you are right, does that make my idea is also right? For if you can't tell who is orbiting who, can I just declare the Sun doesn't orbit the SSB but the SSB orbits the Sun? Can you prove that it is optional? For wouldn't one be more correct than the other?

If the period between the reversals was 11.86 years one would quickly look if Jupiter might have some bearing on that, but instead of it being 11.86 it is 11 years, which is still tantalizing close. That is what I was saying, but I haven't got evidence for it, for at this stage I'm still trying to understand how the combined mass of the planets or even the Solar System barycenter (SSB) affects the Sun. There are 4 other inner planets and even though they are much smaller, they are closer and orbit faster. Does this advance the time period by a percentage (an amount)?