How does the Sun get orbital energy to start orbiting a barycenter?

[Robittybob1]

Gravity works. If you introduce a new body of sufficient mass Then the barycenter will shift. The new barycenter becomes the new center of mass.

 

 

I'm really not sure what your looking for in the above. You have two main factors conservation of momentum and gravity.

How the sun and planets rotate is conservation of angular momentum.

 

During formation all the plasma interactions develop a swirl effect. It's pretty near impossible to compress a gas without developing angular momentum interactions. As that plasma contracts then this spin increases. Any interactions later on can influence this rate.

 

Now there is something called gravitational tidal locking where the gravity of one body can influence the spin of another object. Mercury is totally locked by the sun for example. However Jupiter does not tidally lock the sun. The Barycenter can influence the rotation of the sun in theory, however it's spin is still dominated by its conserved angular momentum.

In point of fact the planets have a far better chance of being tidally locked than our massive sun. F=ma after all.

 

 

As a side note the Earths axis rotation is regularly influenced. Usually by extremely small amounts by meteor strikes and nearby misses.

But also from the moon. our day is roughly 1.7 milliseconds longer than a century ago.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_rotation

All forces and particle interactions contribute to conservation of angular momentum. To calculate a planets spin that is not tidally locked. Requires knowing the planets entire history. Good luck with that lol

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.)

Edited February 9, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Mordred]

Play with equal masses etc. Try different angles. You'd be amazed at the similarities.

Point 2 is simple the outer rotation of any spinning object is usually slower.

 

Take a sprocket on a 1000 rpm motor. A 6 inch sprocket rotates with a lower velocity than a 1 inch sprocket. Both measurements have the same revolutions per minute but different speeds

Not familiar with Sun spot cycles enough to help except you need to look at thermodynamics Sun spots are regions that are cooler. For that you need to look at the suns thermodynamic processes

 

 

If I recall sunspots correlate to the suns magnetic field lines which are chaotic in and of themselves

[Robittybob1]

Play with equal masses etc. Try different angles. You'd be amazed at the similarities.

Point 2 is simple the outer rotation of any spinning object is usually slower.

 

Take a sprocket on a 1000 rpm motor. A 6 inch sprocket rotates with a lower velocity than a 1 inch sprocket. Both measurements have the same revolutions per minute but different speeds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

 

 

rotation period

(at equator) 25.05 days[1]

(at 16° latitude) 25.38 days[1]

25 d 9 h 7 min 12 s[10]

(at poles) 34.4 days[1]

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

Edited February 9, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Mordred]

Ah cool now we're getting to the heart of your concerns. This will take some thought but consider the sun is a ball of gas. It will have different dynamics than a solid. I would imagine you may find something similar on Jupiter.

 

Never really looked at this in detail so will try to dig up some material on this specifically.

 

Lol more of a overall universe cosmology guy and particle physics. For some reason what's in between really really big and really really small never captured my interest lol

 

 

A direction to look I Earths atmosphere it also does not flow at equal rates in relation to the Earths spin.

(Same rules and reasons should apply)

[Robittybob1]

Ah cool now we're getting to the heart of your concerns. This will take some thought but consider the sun is a ball of gas. It will have different dynamics than a solid. I would imagine you may find something similar on Jupiter.

 

Never really looked at this in detail so will try to dig up some material on this specifically.

 

Lol more of a overall universe cosmology guy and particle physics. For some reason what's in between really really big and really really small never captured my interest lol

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!

[Mordred]

Google differential rotation.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_rotation

 

Sun is a prime example

PS (I've been studying physics since 1989) on forum most of that time. You learn a thing or two lol

Thanks for the accolade though. Much appreciated.

Keep up the work never be daunted. Any misunderstanding leads to greater understanding.

Life is trial by error, it's how we learn.

 

I always prefer to I include study materials. Tends to answer those questions ppl are afraid to ask

[Robittybob1]

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!

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.

[swansont]

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.

 

Is there something you're trying to demonstrate?

 

Can you explain what exactly you think is going on that's not consistent with Newton's laws of motion and gravity?

[Robittybob1]

 

Is there something you're trying to demonstrate?

 

Can you explain what exactly you think is going on that's not consistent with Newton's laws of motion and gravity?

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

 

 

2. to describe, explain, or illustrate by examples, specimens, experiments, or the like:

to demonstrate the force of gravity by dropping an object.

 

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

 

The sun's magnetic field changes polarity approximately every 11 years. It happens at the peak of each solar cycle as the sun's inner magnetic dynamo re-organizes itself. The coming reversal will mark the midpoint of Solar Cycle 24. Half of "solar max" will be behind us, with half yet to come.

 

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.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Robittybob1

[whiskers]

"I am tending to the view that the SS barycenter orbits the Sun rather than the Sun orbits the SS barycenter."

 

Please see what I wrote before re: "A orbits B" is not a thing.

[astromark]

~ It's been a while.. I have been invited to look at, and have.. Thanks..

~ Try and think of the PROTO planetary disk that WAS the Solar system before the planets cleared there respective orbits..
Yes the Barycenter would have been very near the Suns actuall center.. That gravity at work..the subject gets complicated by radial motion.

Everything is in motion.. Every few years the two gas giants pass each other and a signifacant wobble is noted..
Babies are born and some have freckles and red hair.. Yes that what this is about.. It might as well be.. I have gone through this whole thread TWICE and can not see a question to answer.. Oh., and Yes.. the three inner planets do orbit the Sun. Not the barycenter.. They each have there own barycenter.. Does that help.

[Robittybob1]

"I am tending to the view that the SS barycenter orbits the Sun rather than the Sun orbits the SS barycenter."

 

Please see what I wrote before re: "A orbits B" is not a thing.

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.

~ It's been a while.. I have been invited to look at, and have.. Thanks..

 

~ Try and think of the PROTO planetary disk that WAS the Solar system before the planets cleared there respective orbits..

Yes the Barycenter would have been very near the Suns actuall center.. That gravity at work..the subject gets complicated by radial motion.

Everything is in motion.. Every few years the two gas giants pass each other and a signifacant wobble is noted..

Babies are born and some have freckles and red hair.. Yes that what this is about.. It might as well be.. I have gone through this whole thread TWICE and can not see a question to answer.. Oh., and Yes.. the three inner planets do orbit the Sun. Not the barycenter.. They each have there own barycenter.. Does that help.

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?

[astromark]

No. I do not disagree with what is science as we know it.. The gravity of all of the mass of the Solar System includes the Gas giants and the masses of every component particle.. I understand it thus; Each body ( planet ) has a effective gravity mass.. That in a top down view of the 11.8 year cycle a signiffacant wobble is apparent.. The Solar mass is a gas ball.. It gets pulled in sevral directions.. Not just the gravity of Jupiter., all of them.. and including the galactic attraction.

Remember it's taken obout 5 billion years for the settling to reach this point.. The early solar system would have been chaotic., and we know that it was..
The solar system is a component part of the Milkyway.. It all effects the actuall motion.. Look closlly at tidal charts.. The tidal highs and lows do not match the Lunar possition.. I call it gravity lagging.. It's real.

[swansont]

By the word "demonstrate" I mean "describe in words".

 

Yes, I understand what the word means. I asked what you are trying to demonstrate. Your OP asked a question. Now you say you are trying to also demonstrate something. What is it?

[whiskers]

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.

 

For a lot of physics problems, what people often don't get at first is that there is no true or proper frame of reference. Before Newton brought in equal-and-opposite forces, people used an archaic religious model which included a divine "center" around which other bodies moved. Whether you call it the Earth or the Sun or the barycenter, you're still just using a particular model. "Orbiting around" is a convenience, not something which you can determine or measure. To use the barycenter in calculations is to seek a point in local space which is the closest to being an inertial frame of reference. It is a better not-actually-real accounting trick than saying that things are orbiting the Sun. An orbit is a relationship between 2 bodies. Here's an interesting simulation of an "orbit" of two equal-mass bodies around a common center. Note there is nothing there in the center which is attracting the bodies to it, they are not orbiting around it in the pre-Newtonian sense.

[Robittybob1]

 

For a lot of physics problems, what people often don't get at first is that there is no true or proper frame of reference. Before Newton brought in equal-and-opposite forces, people used an archaic religious model which included a divine "center" around which other bodies moved. Whether you call it the Earth or the Sun or the barycenter, you're still just using a particular model. "Orbiting around" is a convenience, not something which you can determine or measure. To use the barycenter in calculations is to seek a point in local space which is the closest to being an inertial frame of reference. It is a better not-actually-real accounting trick than saying that things are orbiting the Sun. An orbit is a relationship between 2 bodies. Here's an interesting simulation of an "orbit" of two equal-mass bodies around a common center. Note there is nothing there in the center which is attracting the bodies to it, they are not orbiting around it in the pre-Newtonian sense.

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?

Edited February 10, 2015 by Robittybob1

[whiskers]

The purpose of the Einstein quote in the image/link above was to suggest that yes you could in fact justify such a thing - in physics terms if not in practical or budgetary terms. You end up with a more convoluted space metric needed to describe the motions of nearby objects. Using the barycenter by contrast is the simplest - and this is why it is used. Every time you pick a center of greater mass you lose "epicycles" in your calculation - starting Earth, then Sun, then barycenter, then galactic core, etc. The *real* formulas used in today's big computers are moment-to-moment integrations of sums lf all pairs of opposing forces, not a "theory" of "orbits". From the point of view of a single binary star, the other star certainly does appear to orbit around it. You can never completelyuse Newtonian mechanics if you consider your point of view to be "unmoving" - things will never fully add up. Even if one is located at the SSB and attempting to account for all forces inside the solar system, there will be tiny variances from what the formulas would suggest (ignoring relativity for a moment) which are due to gravity & momentum related to SSB relationship to other matter in the galaxy.

[Robittybob1]

The purpose of the Einstein quote in the image/link above was to suggest that yes you could in fact justify such a thing - in physics terms if not in practical or budgetary terms. You end up with a more convoluted space metric needed to describe the motions of nearby objects. Using the barycenter by contrast is the simplest - and this is why it is used. Every time you pick a center of greater mass you lose "epicycles" in your calculation - starting Earth, then Sun, then barycenter, then galactic core, etc. The *real* formulas used in today's big computers are moment-to-moment integrations of sums lf all pairs of opposing forces, not a "theory" of "orbits". From the point of view of a single binary star, the other star certainly does appear to orbit around it. You can never completelyuse Newtonian mechanics if you consider your point of view to be "unmoving" - things will never fully add up. Even if one is located at the SSB and attempting to account for all forces inside the solar system, there will be tiny variances from what the formulas would suggest (ignoring relativity for a moment) which are due to gravity & momentum related to SSB relationship to other matter in the galaxy.

 

The purpose of the Einstein quote in the image/link above was to suggest that yes you could in fact justify such a thing - in physics terms if not in practical or budgetary terms. You end up with a more convoluted space metric needed to describe the motions of nearby objects. Using the barycenter by contrast is the simplest - and this is why it is used. Every time you pick a center of greater mass you lose "epicycles" in your calculation - starting Earth, then Sun, then barycenter, then galactic core, etc. The *real* formulas used in today's big computers are moment-to-moment integrations of sums lf all pairs of opposing forces, not a "theory" of "orbits". From the point of view of a single binary star, the other star certainly does appear to orbit around it. You can never completelyuse Newtonian mechanics if you consider your point of view to be "unmoving" - things will never fully add up. Even if one is located at the SSB and attempting to account for all forces inside the solar system, there will be tiny variances from what the formulas would suggest (ignoring relativity for a moment) which are due to gravity & momentum related to SSB relationship to other matter in the galaxy.

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).

Edited February 10, 2015 by Robittybob1

[whiskers]

 

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).

Also there's the fact that the parts of the solar system "ahead" of the barycenter in it's general "orbit" relative to the GC and those "behind" are subjected to attraction to the GC which are not parallel and thus distort their relative motion relative to one another and the barycenter.

[Robittybob1]

Also there's the fact that the parts of the solar system "ahead" of the barycenter in it's general "orbit" relative to the GC and those "behind" are subjected to attraction to the GC which are not parallel and thus distort their relative motion relative to one another and the barycenter.

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?

[whiskers]

Can you start over, breaking it down a bit? Perhaps a few statements and one question?

[Robittybob1]

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

[whiskers]

SSB is like a 3-dimensional average. Any collection of particles has a 3-dimensional average or center of mass. So some of this collapsing nebula will form planets. The center of mass of the particles which are in the "proto sun" and the center of mass of all particles in the collapsing nebula are not exactly the same point.

[Robittybob1]

SSB is like a 3-dimensional average. Any collection of particles has a 3-dimensional average or center of mass. So some of this collapsing nebula will form planets. The center of mass of the particles which are in the "proto sun" and the center of mass of all particles in the collapsing nebula are not exactly the same point.

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

 

"The Sun's wobble is barely perceptible." and "The Sun orbits a barycenter just above its surface."

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:

 

To calculate the actual motion of the Sun, you would need to sum all the influences from all the planets, comets, asteroids, etc. of the Solar System (see n-body problem). If all the planets were aligned on the same side of the Sun, the combined center of mass would lie about 500,000 km above the Sun's surface.

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?

Edited February 11, 2015 by Robittybob1

[whiskers]

There is no center, really. You can "put the Sun at the center" if you like, but there is no objective reality which you are describing. There is no reality to "A orbits B" therefore no answer to the question "does the Sun orbit the JSB or does JSB orbit the Sun." There is no center, and there are no orbits, but as a convenience, these things are approximately true.

 

"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?"

 

In physics you adopt some practical coordinate system. The coordinate system you adopt determines the values of many of the measurements you make, and none of these CS are more real or true than another. Are you familiar with relativity - motion is relative. You can say that the Sun is moving or you can say that it is not moving. Right?