# Thread: [Solar system rotation and revolution periods, a relationship]

1. ## [Solar system rotation and revolution periods, a relationship]

I have moved these posts from the thread
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....ars-ect./page2, which removes the injunction that Stroller mentions below. Good luck--grapes

Originally Posted by Alsor
Of course, that the stresses are greater than the tidal forces.
In the accelerated motion, there are inertial forces, ie the energy gradient (along the body, which is not a point).

Solar cycle probably results from changes in acceleration - the induction.

The gravity of the planets are working remotely on a mobile system, therefore the energy will increase - according to the Galilean transformation.
Alsor, thank you. The question of the exchange of angular momentum between the planets and the Sun is of particular interest to me.

Two times the inverse of Saturn's orbital period is the same as the equatorial rotation rate of the Sun: 2*(1/29,45yr)=24.8days
The inverse of Jupiter's orbital period is the same as the average rotation rate of the Sun: 1/11.86yr=30.9days
The inverse of half the synodic period of the planet pair is the same as the polar rotation rate of the Sun 1/9.93yr=36.8days

This paper may be of interest to you.

Solar Phys (2010) 266: 227–246
DOI 10.1007/s11207-010-9628-y

A New Way that Planets Can Affect the Sun
Charles L. Wolff · Paul N. Patrone
Received: 5 May 2010 / Accepted: 16 August 2010 / Published online: 18 September 2010

Abstract:
We derive a perturbation inside a rotating star that occurs when the star is accelerated by orbiting bodies. If a fluid element has rotational and orbital components of angular momentum with respect to the inertially fixed point of a planetary system that are of opposite sign, then the element may have potential energy that could be released by a suitable flow. We demonstrate the energy with a very simple model in which two fluid elements of equal mass exchange positions, calling to mind a turbulent field or natural convection. The exchange releases potential energy that, with a minor exception, is available only in the hemisphere facing the barycenter of the planetary system. We calculate its strength and spatial distribution for the strongest case (“vertical”) and for weaker horizontal cases whose motions are all perpendicular to gravity. The vertical cases can raise the kinetic energy of a few well positioned convecting elements in the Sun’s envelope by a factor ≤ 7. This is the first physical mechanism by which planets can have a nontrivial effect on internal solar motions. Occasional small mass exchanges near the solar center and in a recently proposed mixed shell centered at 0.16Rs would carry fresh fuel to deeper levels. This would cause stars like the Sun with appropriate planetary systems to burn somewhat more brightly and have shorter lifetimes than identical stars without planets. The helioseismic sound speed and the long record of sunspot activity offer several bits of evidence that the effect may havebeen active in the Sun’s core, its envelope, and in some vertically stable layers. Additional proof will require direct evidence from helioseismology or from transient waves on the solar surface.
Last edited by Stroller; 2011-Aug-09 at 06:25 AM.

2. Originally Posted by Stroller
Two times the inverse of Saturn's orbital period is the same as the equatorial rotation rate of the Sun: 2*(1/29,45yr)=24.8days
The inverse of Jupiter's orbital period is the same as the average rotation rate of the Sun: 1/11.86yr=30.9days
The inverse of half the synodic period of the planet pair is the same as the polar rotation rate of the Sun 1/9.93yr=36.8days
Wow! and you don't care about units at all do you? 1/yr = day? riiiiiiiiiiiiight!

3. Originally Posted by Stroller
Alsor, thank you. The question of the exchange of angular momentum between the planets and the Sun is of particular interest to me.

Two times the inverse of Saturn's orbital period is the same as the equatorial rotation rate of the Sun: 2*(1/29,45yr)=24.8days
The inverse of Jupiter's orbital period is the same as the average rotation rate of the Sun: 1/11.86yr=30.9days
The inverse of half the synodic period of the planet pair is the same as the polar rotation rate of the Sun 1/9.93yr=36.8days

This paper may be of interest to you.
Stoller, stay on topic in ATM threads. Do not introduce tangential results, or other theories, whether your own or others.

4. Originally Posted by Stroller
Two times the inverse of Saturn's orbital period is the same as the equatorial rotation rate of the Sun: 2*(1/29,45yr)=24.8days
The inverse of Jupiter's orbital period is the same as the average rotation rate of the Sun: 1/11.86yr=30.9days
The inverse of half the synodic period of the planet pair is the same as the polar rotation rate of the Sun 1/9.93yr=36.8days
Originally Posted by tusenfem
Wow! and you don't care about units at all do you? 1/yr = day? riiiiiiiiiiiiight!
Tusenfem: I hope it's ok to reply to you about this bearing in mind Grapes' injunction. I think it should be, since the central question raised by this thread is whether the Sun, and therefore Mercury which is in orbit around it, experience inertial forces due to their common rotation about the solar system barycentre. The fact that the relationships in the periods given above exist provides supporting evidence for the thesis, in my opinion. Others may disagree. That is what scientific discourse is all about.

In the Newtonian framework, one of the logical consequences of inertial forces are spin-orbit couplings, and the fact that the Sun rotates on its own axis at different speeds between its equator and poles which match the orbital frequencies and harmonics of the two biggest planets in the solar system is to my mind a clear indication of a mechanically coupled relationship. There is no explanation in the literature for the faster circulation of the Sun's equatorial region and the slower rotation of its poles. It's a work in progress for the proponents of the Dynamo theory. It is an open question which should be open to the kind of scientific debate for which the Baut forum has in the past been justifiably renowned.

To answer your point; I gave the result in days because these are readily identifiable as the solar axial rotation periods with which everyone is familiar. If we divide the number of days in the results by the number of days in a year, we find that the numbers we obtain are indeed the inverses of the planetary periods in years I stated. I won't labour the point by enumerating them here.

5. Originally Posted by Stroller
Tusenfem: I hope it's ok to reply to you about this bearing in mind Grapes' injunction. I think it should be, since the central question raised by this thread is whether the Sun, and therefore Mercury which is in orbit around it, experience inertial forces due to their common rotation about the solar system barycentre. The fact that the relationships in the periods given above exist provides supporting evidence for the thesis, in my opinion. Others may disagree. That is what scientific discourse is all about.
I know what this thread is about, but just throwing in nonsense relations that 1/xxx years = yyy days is totally out of place. therefore my riiiiiiiiight.
It is not a relationship between periods. You seem to have a relation that:

2*(1/29,45yr)=24.8days
or maybe I should read the yr in the numerator? Then this seems to be okay, but that does not make any sense now, does it, the inverse of the orbital period would not have the yr in the numerator but in the denominator. A curious happestance, nothing more.

6. Originally Posted by tusenfem
A curious happestance, nothing more.
Tusenfem: thank you for your opinion.

Allow me to approach the issue from another direction which will, I hope, make the relationship clearer and lead you to agree that there is a strong possibility that the relationship is not "a curious happenstance" but a logical outcome of the physical forces which formed and maintain the solar system in a dynamic equilibrium.

In 1859 Urbain le Verrier stated that:
"“In comparing the masses of the Earth, Jupiter and Saturn to their volumes, one remarks that the
densities of these planets are, to some degree, inverse to their mean distances from the Sun."
Taking Jupiter and Saturn:
The ratio of their densities is 0.52.
The ratio of their distances from the Sun is 0.535.

By 1532 Nicolaus Copernicus had discovered that:
The Synodic period of two superior planets is given by the inverse of the inverse of the orbital period of the slower moving body minus the inverse of the orbital period of the faster moving body
For Jupiter and Saturn this gives 19.86 years. If you multiply this number by the ratio of their orbital distances you will obtain 10.8

One of the harmonic periods of the (tidally effective) half period of this synodic period and the Jupiter orbital period is given by T1*T2/(T2+T1) which also turns out to be 10.8 years. This time period coincides with the central peak of the spectrographic analysis of the sunspot record, the other two near the solar cycle length being 9.93 years (half of the Jupiter - Saturn synodic period) and 11.86 years (The Jupiter orbital period).

Curious Happestance to the fourth power.

There are other interesting relationships I've discovered between the two biggest planets in the solar system and the Sun, but I fear that to detail them here would incur the wrath of Grapes, so I will desist now.

I have tried to find what the linkage is between the two calculations which produce the 10.8 year figure, but it eludes me. Since the crash I was in, my ability with algebraic transformation is impaired. Any help Tusenfem or any other readers can offer would be most appreciated - thanks.

7. I have moved the above posts from the thread
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....ars-ect./page2, which removes the injunction that Stroller mentions. They are now in a separate ATM thread of their own.

8. Hi Grapes and thanks.
It's the first time I've found myself in this situation, so I trust everyone will take it steady and hopefully we'll all come out of it having learned something interesting.

9. OK, I'm away for a week and there's no interest here at the moment. Please could the moderators put this on thread ice for re-opening at a later date?
I'll do some more writing up and hopefully the new material might spark some thoughts.

Best regards.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•
here