Robittybob1

Either the planets orbit the Sun or the SSB and I hoping someone has determined that, but they are virtually the same to all intents and purposes. So I'm not answering that until I have researched it further.

Well it is generally accepted that the planets orbit the Sun (or the SSB) whatever, they are points real close to each other, near the Sun itself. So do we accept we are on the body that is orbiting the Sun rather that early ideas of the Geocentric SS? Science has in some way defined a center. I hope we can agree on that. Do we agree that the planets orbit the Sun or the SSB (one or the other you don't have to choose yet)?

OK as I understood it the 3-dimensional nebula becomes the proto-sun and the protoplanetary disc which is more like a 2-dimensional plane. Any matter captured by the proto-sun is more or less trapped there. At some stage the protoplanetary disc forms bands and these subsequently form the planets, so that is why the planets are on the ecliptic plane http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Solarsys.svg/560px-Solarsys.svg.png With this sort of fabrication one could imagine the SSB being very close to the Proto-Sun's center early stages. If I draw a diagram with the Sun at the center and draw circle around it representing the orbiting of the planet Jupiter and keep the center of the Sun the center of the orbit and draw in say the barycenter of Jupiter, which is just above the surface of the Sun, the Jupiter-Sun barycenter (JSB) will proscribe another circle around the Sun over a 11.86 year period. So how can we tell if the JSB proscribes a circle (follows a circular path) around the Sun or whether the Sun orbits the JSB? They say the Sun wobbles due to orbiting the JSB but is the wobble going in the right direction? Would the two situations described above produce identical wobbles? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinates_%28astronomy%29 In my logic any wobble will be in phase with the movement of Jupiter, as it will be gravitationally accelerated toward Jupiter so it is always moving toward Jupiter from the position it was before but at all times the JSB is between the Sun and Jupiter, and we never say "the Sun orbits Jupiter" so why do we say "The Sun orbits the JSB"? I can't really see how you can draw the picture where the center of the wobble is around the JSB. Well maybe you can if we make the SSB a fixed point but then we'd need a mechanism to accelerate and decelerate the Sun for the SSB alters year by year on a 12 yearly pattern (approx). http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Solar_system_barycenter.svg/250px-Solar_system_barycenter.svg.png Here is a bit where thye talk about the motion of the Sun: OK but if it was orbiting that spot 500,000 km above the Sun's surface which way would you see it move? Will it be moving toward the combined mass of the planets or just tangentially? So even if you convince yourself it is orbiting how does it then remove all its orbital momentum at times, as per the pattern?

First picture the proto-sun forming from the collapsing nebula. Was the SSB in the center of the proto-sun?

What do you mean By "it is not expected to happen"? What is not expected to happen? The reversal occurs every 11 years.

Such is the everyday life of an orbiting body when it becomes part of a n-body problem. It becomes complicated. Where do I go from here?

I did follow this a bit earlier but forgetting it as quick, but you'd have to consider whether they were competing species (side by side) or serial species (one type evolving into another over time but not competing). Neanderthals were thought to have interbred with Homo Sapiens so they weren't fully speciated in a way. Well that is my off the cuff non-expert view for what it is worth.

Tidal effects, the one gravitational effect from planets that the Sun can "feel" are proportional to the mass of the planet and inversely proportional to the cube of the distance. If you work this out for the planets, only four planets have any significant tidal effect on the Sun. In order, they are Jupiter, Venus, Earth, Mercury. If we set Jupiter's influence at 1, Venus is close behind at 0.95( Venus has almost the same tidal influence as Jupiter), Earth is 0.44 and Mercury is 0.42. The major players of these 4 are Venus and Jupiter. and the their effect combine when they and the Sun are in a straight line (either on the same or opposite sides of the Sun. This happens every 130 days. So if the planets had a gravitational effect that effected the Sun's magnetic field, you should see a variation over this period. [The quoting function is hard to understand sometimes!] OK but did you ever look at that thread on the Physics Forum where that paper showed a displacement of the core of the Earth? It was shown the moon displaces the Earth's inner core differently than the rest of the outer core. If the planets were pulling on the Sun maybe the "Sun's core" is displaced and this displacement is affected by the arrangement of those 4 planets? If the core was displaced (and tides) is that equivalent to your concept of "feeling" the gravitational pull?

OK that makes sense. The gravitational influence of the galaxy on our SSB must be quite minuscule as the orbital period has gone out to something like 200 million years (a guess at this stage as I have to go to work).

In tens of thousands of years you would get a different breed or subspecies but to get a true genetic difference that stopped interbreeding (species) I thought it would take a lot longer, that is why I started thinking in terms of millions of years. With genetic engineering you could speed this up of course.

Yes that is an extensive study, but there was one sentence in there that still said they didn't know the cause of all this strength, and that is what I wanted to offer a proposal. But I need to see if there is an explanation why the periodicity doesn't initially seem to be related to the periodicity of the planets around the Sun, so it definitely is study and more study at this stage.

I couldn't see the animation sorry "A network change was detected." was the error message. Yet it it come up now! So what formulas do we use when calculating the motion of the binary stars? If we said one of the binary stars was stationary and the barycenter was being moved in space around it, could we justify that? Not likely in fact I can't see how one could work that. It could orbit it as a circle or ellipse, but not with that looping pattern. Well then there would not be sufficient mass in the central point to keep it orbiting. So it seems to be more than just a "proper frame of reference" problem. If you think I'm wrong can you make then move differently looking at them from a different FoR and still make it physically possible? I do admit if you were standing on one star with a telescope you could draw a complicated pattern of movement of the binary star, but you would not be able to use Newtonian mechanics to account for that motion, would you?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87650-how-does-the-sun-get-orbital-energy-to-start-orbiting-a-barycenter/page-2#entry851883 I'm not sure if that helped. Therefore I ignored it before, because any talk of the SS barycenter orbiting the galaxy is making the issue too far field. According to Newtonian physics all planets would be orbiting the SS barycenter wouldn't they? So how do the inner planets break from that and just orbit the Sun? If the planets further out somehow formed a ring then the gravitational tug would cancel but the mass is all is in one point so the outer planets do affect the inner ones. I take it you disagree with me at this stage, is that right?

Well the Sun's magnetic field is not an easy topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_magnetic_field I wrote up a series of questions today: 1. Would this event happen if the Sun was on its own? (like not part of a solar system (SS).) 2. If this event is due to the presence of the planets, what are the planets doing? 3. What methods of interaction could the planets have on the Sun? (The only answers to that so far are gravity,light, magnetic fields, and transfer of angular momentum.) 4. If there were periods where the Sun is accelerated and decelerated, could this be causing the Solar Magnetic pole reversal (SMPR)? 5. Does this periodicity match the position of the planets (the position of Jupiter in particular)? 6. What is the periodicity of the SMPR? 7. What other physical system has a similar periodicity?

I think the answer to that is yes, for the environment that these trapped organisms survive in is sufficiently different to the rest of us open air dwellers. It would take a bit more than a few generations though, in my guess it would need something in the order of 2-3 million years (you can do the calculations as to how many generations that might be).

Well everything I've said is consistent with Newton's Laws of motion and gravity. By the word "demonstrate" I mean "describe in words". http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/demonstrate Today I was thinking if there is any truth in what I have been proposing does it account for the Sun rapidly changing its magnetic field? (I would like to look at the Sun's magnetic field in a separate thread more suited to the topic.) http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/the-suns-magnetic-field-is-about-to-flip/#.VNmOQfmUeF8 What I am saying is falsifiable so it can either be proven wrong or supported by observation. What we need to prove is whether the Sun orbits the SS barycenter or some other spot? Why I think this is the case is that the Sun does not have sufficient orbital energy to orbit the SS barycenter but is instead drawn by the combined gravitational attractions of the planets. Whether that amounts to the same thing as orbiting the SS barycenter I'm not 100% certain at this stage, but I'll be extensively studying the physics of this situation for a while. I am tending to the view that the SS barycenter orbits the Sun rather than the Sun orbits the SS barycenter. They both result in a very similar picture in that the physical order in both situations is "planets - SS barycenter - Sun" but in one the Sun represents the most stationary point and in the other the barycenter is the most stationary point in the SS.

There is the mystery the Sun's changing magnetic field. I wouldn't be surprised if the work we have done doesn't go some way to explaining that as well. I'll be back to explain this later. BBS.

You certainly know a lot. And even when you throw in an odd sounding reference it is related to the subject. I've been a little blown away by what I have presented in the last two days, but I think it has some real significance and they are ideas that could be proven falsifiable too (like is Jupiter migrating inwardly today? I've never heard of that!) I did some amazing work on the Earth's magnetic field and I can see a parallelism to this work on the Sun. We could be on to something!

Notice how the rotation period of the Sun differs from the equatorial parts compared to the poles. It is rpm. I'm talking about.

What you've said is basically correct but I don't think you have understood the importance of what I have been trying to demonstrate. 1. The reason for the Sun spot cycle. 2. the rotational rate at the Sun's equator being greater than at the poles. The additional consequence of this could be the inward migration of the Gas Giant planets for they would be the energy source for this rotation, and with overcoming friction to maintain that motion, Jupiter and Saturn would need to gradually fall inward toward the Sun. (I'm a bit unsure of this as yet as it is a very new thought, 10 minutes old at the most.)

But that is where it is wrong isn't it? If the Sun was on its own just being orbited by Jupiter and Jupiter and the Sun were behaving like two binary stars orbiting a barycenter I could agree, but when the star was stationary and another body the size of a planet is captured by it from the perspective of the star the barycenter orbits it, for there is no mechanism that the planet can give the star any lateral motion to the line between them. I'll have to see if this has been discussed by anyone else. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.246.5726&rep=rep1&type=pdf There doesn't seem to be any problem with thinking the Earth-Moon barycenter orbits the Sun. The Earth-Sun barycenter will be in a different location to the Sun-Jupiter barycenter, so it is hard to think that the Sun is orbiting the Earth-Sun barycenter on a yearly cycle and the Sun-Jupiter barycenter on a 11.86 year cycle, but it would not be hard to think of these barycenters orbiting the Sun, sometimes aligning and sometimes on the opposite side of the Sun. So the net effect is a stirring of the gases of the Sun on a 12 yearly cycle. This effect would only happen if the Sun is chasing the SS barycenter rather than orbiting the SS barycenter. So that makes the Sun orbit this other spot (let's call it the "RB spot") on a 12 yearly cycle. This circular motion interrupted by periods where the RB spot, the SS barycenter and the center of the Sun coincide would result in a circulation (I was able to demonstrate this simply by putting some peppered water in a bowl and moving the bowl in circular swirling motion as the SS barycenter moves in relation to the core of the Sun, and then stopping, the water ended up rotating in the bowl yet the bowl had not rotated).

Things have to have a certain amount of orbital energy don't they? The Earth transfers momentum and energy to the Moon and the Moon is being tidally accelerated and hence it drifts away from the Earth. It won't do this without the addition of energy. This energy is at the expense of the Earth's rotational energy. So I can picture that one OK, but what makes the Sun orbit the SS barycenter? In my impression this must be from the gravitational acceleration from the planetary masses, but that would mean the movement is radial not tangential. Radial movement is noticed as a wobble which is alright. It is more like the SS barycenter orbits the Sun and the Sun is continual falling toward that ever-shifting point. (I believe that is the correct answer). The barycenter will always be roughly* on line between Jupiter and the center of the Sun and as Jupiter orbits the Sun the barycenter orbits the Sun as well. (* it will be slightly influenced by the position other planets as well) I thought for a moment this could explain why the equatorial region of the Sun rotates more rapidly than the poles, but I've changed my mind for I'm not certain of the mechanism yet.

Did we answer the OP question? I felt it has not yet been answered in a physical way. It is easy to calculate the barycenter between two masses but how do you explain the orbital energy? Every few years the Sun's core is spinning and orbiting the very barycenter of the SS, so we can't just put it down to some velocity that has built up over the millennia. Is there any actual proof that the Sun is orbiting at all? There is a definite wobble on a 11.86 year period. But is that wobble actually orbital motion?

Which barycenter? The Sun Jupiter one or the combined SS barycenter? Looking at the equation for the position of a barycenter the further apart the masses are the further out from the heaviest mass is the barycenter. Do you agree with that? Which is surprising for if you take that to a limit and take Jupiter to an extreme distance so that its gravitation attraction on the Sun is minimal you would wonder why the Sun's wobble would be the greatest. But certainly the frequency of the wobble reduces the further out the planet is.

That could be saying much the same thing if the Sun is orbiting the common barycenter and Mercury is orbiting the Sun, it certainly could explain why Mercury's orbit is more eccentric than the other terrestrial planets. For example the Moon orbits the Earth and also orbits the Sun. So does the Moon orbit the SS barycenter. It is hard to compute that by thought only. Another day another thread maybe.