Planetary orbits and spins

[Biggins]

It looks as if the link between rotation and TSI is not as clear as I thought...

It looks as if the solar radiance oscillates much faster than the earth's rotation. Oh well..back to the drawing board.

[Biggins]

Unfortunately when you look at the full datasef (from 1978) there is only a very tenuous cycle visible; at the start of the dataset the graph is almost flat and at the end, there is a notable flattening instead of an increase.

In other words - we could do with another 50 years of data

[solrey]

In other words - we could do with another 50 years of data

Apparently somebody else thought so too.

Length of day correlated to cosmic rays and sunspots



It looks like we have a match.

Can't say I agree with their conclusions on cause and effect, though:

Thus, the Earth (specifically the mantle), the rotation is accelerated or slowed according to the fluctuations of cosmic rays under the influence of solar activity through the zonal winds, provide a wonderful device integration variations in atmospheric angular momentum and zonal wind circulation that it is difficult to measure directly.

The wind did it? Bit of a stretch, imho.

They do recognize the electric current through the atmosphere, but only insofar as how it effects clouds/the atmosphere. Unfortunately they ignore some crucial solar parameters which do fluctuate more than just a few tenths of a percent, unlike TSI, and would be directly related to homopolar inductance. I think the crucial parameters are solar plasma density and speed, as well as solar magnetic field strength and direction, as they change in rhythm with the sunspot cycles.

cheers

[Jarvamundo]

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=15

The longer patterns in changes of the length of the day can last for decades. "These are caused by processes within Earth's core," says Gross. "The core is a fluid. Its motion generates Earth's magnetic field. Changes in its motion can change the rotation of solid Earth. Observing the magnetic field at the surface gives us an idea of how fluid is moving within the core. These changes in the fluid motion inferred from the magnetic field match the longer period changes we see in the length of the day."

Wow it's really hard to keep reading between the lines to separate "the models" from the "observations".

Good to have you back Tim and makin some sense of it all.

[solrey]

Thanks Alex. Way to read between the lines by "highlighting" the underlying reality.

I noticed that was from 2002

The longer patterns in changes of the length of the day can last for decades.

As in the 11 and/or 22 year solar cycle?

And what is this all about?

"The annual changes in the length of the day," says Gross, "are caused mostly by the atmosphere -- changes in the strength and direction of the winds, especially the jet stream. The Sun warms the equator more than the poles. That temperature difference is largely responsible for the jet stream. Seasonal changes in that temperature difference cause changes in the winds and, hence, the length of the day."

Ummmm, there are like two hemisphere's ya know. I mean, the seasons are anti-correlated between the two hemispheres so doesn't that pretty much balance out? Winter "up" here, summer "down" there, that sort of thing. And what about ENSO, PDO, AMO and their effects on global atmospheric circulation patterns? I would think that would throw some anomalies into the annual variations but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Now what's a common variable to the whole planet as it orbits the sun? Distance. Specifically distance between the Earth and Suns magnetic fields, and magnetic field strength decreases at, is it 1/r2 or 1/r4, between two magnetized spheres like the Sun and Earth. Well if the variation in magnetic field strength has anything to do with Earth's speed of rotation, couldn't an eliptical orbit like Earth has produce a "seasonal" variation in speed of rotation as the magnetic field strength changes with distance?

cheers

[ElecGeekMom]

How about this?

When the sun is quiet, the ionosphere lowers, indicating a thinning of the atmosphere. Conversely, when the sun is active, the ionosphere elevates, indicating a thickening of the atmosphere. Wouldn't that have an impact on the speed of the earth's rotation?

I would expect some sort of lag in that mechanism.

[Adolfo Giurfa]

Thanks Alex. Way to read between the lines by "highlighting" the underlying reality.

I noticed that was from 2002

The longer patterns in changes of the length of the day can last for decades.

As in the 11 and/or 22 year solar cycle?

And what is this all about?

"The annual changes in the length of the day," says Gross, "are caused mostly by the atmosphere -- changes in the strength and direction of the winds, especially the jet stream. The Sun warms the equator more than the poles. That temperature difference is largely responsible for the jet stream. Seasonal changes in that temperature difference cause changes in the winds and, hence, the length of the day."

We are still lacking the actual interrelation of all forces in the field; thus we have a great amount of details, and we end by trying to find the way out of this multiplicity, then we should go back to principles, so a unified conception is needed:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598073/Unified-Field
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598190/el-campo-unificado

[Aveo9]

How about this?

When the sun is quiet, the ionosphere lowers, indicating a thinning of the atmosphere. Conversely, when the sun is active, the ionosphere elevates, indicating a thickening of the atmosphere. Wouldn't that have an impact on the speed of the earth's rotation?

I would expect some sort of lag in that mechanism.

Can a gaseous atmosphere transfer angular momentum to the solid planet? I would have thought that the change in height of the ionosphere is indicative of a change in the electromagnetic torque that the sun's applying to the Earth. Change in torque = change in rotation and the elevation of the ionosphere is a concurrent effect.

[nick c]

This thread is a merger of the following threads:

The spin of the planet's

Varying earth rotation

Frequencies and Rotation

What drives the planets, Electrical Energy?

Intriguing discussion on the role of planetary mechanics

Titius-Bode law?

Orbital Distances Problem

Flat Solar System - Why?

The Allais Effect in the Electric Universe?

Why Are Planetary Orbits So Stable?

Orbits and Equations

A couple of Planetary science questions?

[gocrew]

I was recently asked by someone deeply skeptical of EU why, if Venus, Earth, Mars and Saturn were new arrivals, they had stabilized their orbits so quickly. I explained that he was thinking in terms only of gravity, and he countered that if these planets had stabilized, why had comets not stabilized into circular orbits. I confessed I did not know.

Can someone help me with this?

[Sparky]

That's a good question!

My WAS (wild ass guess) is that once violent interactions of the planets was completed, and they were being sorted out by both gravity and electrical effects to their respective orbits, that gravity played more and more of a role. Comets, for some mechanical reasons, never did give in completely to gravity and remain electrically connected to the far solar system. (My interpretation) The same electrical connection is present in any comet that inters from outside the solar system.

At this time there is a balance between electrical and gravity, which very well may be electrical. So, there is a chance that someone arguing for gravity is really arguing for a phenomenon of electric effect.

But, ireallydonno.

[celeste]

I was recently asked by someone deeply skeptical of EU why, if Venus, Earth, Mars and Saturn were new arrivals, they had stabilized their orbits so quickly. I explained that he was thinking in terms only of gravity, and he countered that if these planets had stabilized, why had comets not stabilized into circular orbits. I confessed I did not know.

Can someone help me with this?

First show them that even in the gravity only model, we must have had recent major changes in our solar system. Tom VanFlandern (one of the great gravity-only mechanics guys), showed how after changes to the solar system, nearly circular orbits are stable, objects in highly elliptical orbits have few chances to interact, but objects in intermediate orbits are quickly swept up by the sun, or ejected from our solar system. He argued that since we have so many comets in relatively short period orbits, that have yet not been swept up or ejected, this is evidence of recent formation of these objects. Notice that even if there was a supply of new comets from the "Oort Cloud", that would not help explain the existence of these RETURNING comets. So we have, even in the gravity only model, a need for recent changes to our solar system.
It may be easier to show someone the EU ideas, after they see that even in the gravity only model, the idea of our solar system being stable for millions of years, just does not work.

[viscount aero]

I was recently asked by someone deeply skeptical of EU why, if Venus, Earth, Mars and Saturn were new arrivals, they had stabilized their orbits so quickly. I explained that he was thinking in terms only of gravity, and he countered that if these planets had stabilized, why had comets not stabilized into circular orbits. I confessed I did not know.

Can someone help me with this?

This is a great thought-provoking topic, maddeningly elusive in its simplicity. Good question.

I would begin with the EU principle of scalability of phenomena. We can take that beyond only plasma experiments that mirror larger events in nature. We can apply it to local celestial events and use them as metaphors or analogues of larger-scale interactions.

In other words, take the occurrence of meteors entering the Earth's vicinity and atmosphere. In this case the Earth has perturbed the asteroid/meteroid/rock, with the planet acting as a gravity well. This happened spectacularly at Jupiter a few years ago with the comet Shoemaker Levy which slammed into that planet.

So planets can disturb/perturb/draw bodies into them. The bodies that are influenced to orbit a planet or enter atmospheres of planets can either be:

1) in a decaying orbit
2) enter from outside the solar system, from some event (an explosion, ejection or collision) that hurled debris in every direction

If this can happen with asteroids/meteroids/comets then why can't this happen with entire planets? As knowledge of the Kuiper Belt unfolds, too, this sheds light on migration (and sheer number) of bodies. Pluto was demoted from planet to dwarf planet and its general vicinity and orbit and inclination to the ecliptic says it was captured, like a meteor or asteroid. And it was probably captured recently.

What people cannot accept is that planets can be rogue, can be formed elsewhere beyond the Sun and migrate just like other forms of space debris. Core accretion theory precludes any such things so people like your friend cannot accept planetary migrations and orbital changes in such a manner. But it is a double-standard. Why can comets and asteroids and rocks migrate from outside but planets cannot?

Also, pieces of planets can migrate onto other planets, such as from Mars to Earth and Moon to Earth. Pieces of Mars and the Moon fall to Earth with regularity. So what prevents planets themselves from falling into other planets' neighborhoods? Look at Uranus and its axial tilt. That was somehow "done to it." Again, core accretion theory prevents serious pondering of this reality.

Now throw in EU phenomena such as planet-to-planet electrical arcing, birth of "Hot Jupiters" from massive CME events, electrical machining--and the dynamic nature of change suddenly jumps out.

[viscount aero]

I stand corrected, the mainstream actually recognizes planetary migration:

Planetary migration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_migration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Planetary migration occurs when a planet or other stellar satellite interacts with a disk of gas or planetesimals, resulting in the alteration of the satellite's orbital parameters, especially its semi-major axis. The generally accepted theory of planet formation from a protoplanetary disk predicts such planets cannot form so close to their stars, as there is insufficient mass at such small radii and the temperature is too high to allow the formation of rocky or icy planetesimals. It has also become clear that terrestrial-mass planets may be subject to rapid inward migration if they form while the gas disk is still present. This may affect the formation of the cores of the giant planets (which have masses of the order of 10 Earth masses), if those planets form via the core accretion mechanism. Planetary migration is the most likely explanation for hot Jupiters, extrasolar planets with jovian masses and orbits of only a few days.

[viscount aero]

continued from the same article (and note the conventional bias of opinion, particularly in the last line that I have highlighted):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_migration

The migration of the outer planets is necessary to account for the existence and properties of the Solar System's outermost regions.[3] Beyond Neptune, the Solar System continues into the Kuiper belt, the scattered disc, and the Oort cloud, three sparse populations of small icy bodies thought to be the points of origin for most observed comets. At their distance from the Sun, accretion was too slow to allow planets to form before the solar nebula dispersed, and thus the initial disc lacked enough mass density to consolidate into a planet. The Kuiper belt lies between 30 and 55 AU from the Sun, while the farther scattered disc extends to over 100 AU,[3] and the distant Oort cloud begins at about 50,000 AU.[4]

Originally, however, the Kuiper belt was much denser and closer to the Sun: it contained millions of planetesimals, and had an outer edge at approximately 30 AU, the present distance of Neptune.

After the formation of the Solar System, the orbits of all the giant planets continued to change slowly, influenced by their interaction with the large number of remaining planetesimals. After 500–600 million years (about 4 billion years ago) Jupiter and Saturn fell into a 2:1 orbital resonance; Saturn orbited the Sun once for every two Jupiter orbits.[3] This resonance created a gravitational push against the outer planets, causing Neptune to surge past Uranus and plough into the dense planetesimal belt. The planets scattered the majority of the small icy bodies inwards, while themselves moving outwards. These planetesimals then scattered off the next planet they encountered in a similar manner, moving the planets' orbits outwards while they moved inwards.[5] This process continued until the planetesimals interacted with Jupiter, whose immense gravity sent them into highly elliptical orbits or even ejected them outright from the Solar System. This caused Jupiter to move slightly inward. This scattering scenario explains the trans-Neptunian populations' present low mass.

The outer two planets of the Solar System, Uranus and Neptune, are believed to have migrated outward in this way from their formation in orbits near Jupiter and Saturn to their current positions, over hundreds of millions of years.[1] Eventually, friction within the planetesimal disc made the orbits of Uranus and Neptune circular again.[3][6]

In contrast to the outer planets, the inner planets are not believed to have migrated significantly over the age of the Solar System, because their orbits have remained stable following the period of giant impacts.[7]