Thread: It is possible that the solar system is spinning?

1. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137

It is possible that the solar system is spinning?

Why we use the tropical year for calculating the phases of the Moon and planets?

This is not a full circle - the orbital period of Earth, so it should not work properly... but still works.

phase = w * t = 2pi / T * t, where: T - the period of complete revolution, ie 2pi, not less, as indeed there is in the numerator.

Assuming that the U.S. is spinning (with a period about 25,800 years), what would be the consequences - it would be different from what we see now?

Perhaps it was overlooked, and hence the full compliance of the observed phases with erroneous calculations (with incomplete orbital cycle), despite the procession.

2. Originally Posted by Alsor
Why we use the tropical year for calculating the phases of the Moon and planets?

This is not a full circle - the orbital period of Earth, so it should not work properly... but still works.

phase = w * t = 2pi / T * t, where: T - the period of complete revolution, ie 2pi, not less, as indeed there is in the numerator.

Assuming that the U.S. is spinning (with a period about 25,800 years), what would be the consequences - it would be different from what we see now?

Perhaps it was overlooked, and hence the full compliance of the observed phases with erroneous calculations (with incomplete orbital cycle), despite the procession.
We use the tropical year as the basis for our civil calendar because it keeps the dates approximately in sync with the seasons over a long time. Can you tell us, in appropriate mathematical detail, why you think it might be a problem in accounting for the phases of the Moon and planets? Your words do not make it clear to me.

3. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
I think that we can not calculate the correct phase using the formula in which there is full period, by definition, putting something else there.

4. Originally Posted by Alsor
I think that we can not calculate the correct phase using the formula in which there is full period, by definition, putting something else there.
You are attempting to tell us what you think in a few words, but you have not shown us any sample calculations in which you could walk us through it step by step, and show us where the choice of a basis for a calendar year might be a source of error.

We know from observation that the Moon returns to conjunction with the Sun every 29.5 days on the average, with some fluctuations due to the eccentricities of the orbits. We can evaluate those fluctuations empirically and correct for them.

We know from observation that Jupiter returns to conjunction with the Sun every 399 days on the average, with corresponding eccentricity-related fluctuations.

All of this holds whether we use the tropical year or the sidereal year as the basis for our civil calendar, or ignore the solar period entirely as the Muslims do with their religious calendar.

What is the problem?

5. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by Hornblower
All of this holds whether we use the tropical year or the sidereal year as the basis for our civil calendar, or ignore the solar period entirely as the Muslims do with their religious calendar.
No. The differences are very large.

Using the Earth's orbital period = sidereal year, you will receive up to 6 hours discrepancy with the observations in one Saros cycle!

~20 minutes / year * 18 years = 6 hours.

Therefore, in calculations we use the tropical year.

6. Alsor;
Are you asking why we precess?
Are you indicating that there's some unknown variable that causes precession?

The factors are known. Newtonian, GR and SR gravity formulas account for it.

If you're saying that the solar system rotates as a whole, then what you would measure is the precession of all the planets and see how they relate.

7. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by NEOWatcher
If you're saying that the solar system rotates as a whole, then what you would measure is the precession of all the planets and see how they relate.
I do not understand this.
It's not about the dynamics, but only about cycles - kinematics and geometry.

It does not matter whether such a rotation the whole U.S., can be induced by local gravitational effects, or differently, for example by movement of the Sun in the interstellar magnetic field.
Last edited by Alsor; 2012-Jan-27 at 08:53 PM.

8. Alsor... You have failed to inform us of what it is that is wrong...

Yes the Solar system does rotate. Yes all of the orbiting bodies have different rates of orbit.

and Yes the Sun itself is rotating..

The calendar and clock are tested as true.. to within seconds of precision..

What is it that you seem to find wrong ?

9. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Nothing is wrong, despite the use of the wrong period of the Earth in the calculations, and this is just wrong.

In the simulation, after inserting the correct data, you get the correct orbital period of Earth = sidereal year.

Moon phase then changes according to the formula:
f = a * t = 2pi / T * t; that is good - the theory works!

But it is a 20 minutes / year discrepancies in relation to the observed phases.

If the Solar System is rotating at a speed of W = 2pi/25800 y, then these discrepancies disappear.

There are currently known facts, observations, which exclude such a rotation?

10. I will elaborate a bit on my line of thought, starting with simplified thought exercises for the Sun and the Moon and using some day, month and year figures from Norton’s Star Atlas.

Let’s start with circular orbits and periods equal to the actual average ones, with no gravitational perturbation. We know from observation that the Moon returns to conjunction with the Sun every 29.53059 mean solar days (days for short). We record the time of the most recent conjunction and then calculate the elapsed time to any future new, first quarter, full, last quarter and any intermediate crescent or gibbous phase, expressing it in mean solar days and any fraction thereof.

The next exercise includes elliptical orbits, still assuming no gravitational perturbation. Now we would know from observation that the Moon will pass perigee every 27.32166 days and the Earth will pass perihelion every 365.2564 days. These are equal to the respective sidereal periods in which the bodies return to conjunction with the same background stars, which are good inertial frame benchmarks for this purpose. From Johannes Kepler’s second law we find the periodic variations in the angular velocities of these motions, and can calculate the resulting departures of the lunar phase times from those of the previous exercise that used circular orbits.

Now let’s consider the complications caused by the Sun’s severe gravitational perturbation of the Moon’s orbit and the other planets’ mild perturbations of the Earth’s orbit. This causes perigee/perihelion advance, increasing the interval between the Moon’s perigee passages to 27.55455 days and the Earth’s perihelion passages to 365.2596 days. These are averages with short term fluctuations that must be determined empirically. In addition there is evection, a monthly oscillation of the Moon’s angular position around the Keplerian values that would hold in the absence of gravitational perturbation. Kepler and subsequent mathematicians developed techniques for doing these complicated calculations with pencil and paper with the aid of logarithm and trig function tables, and modern computers have greatly speeded up and eased the task. We now can calculate phase times that are in good agreement with observations as timed with atomic master clocks. If I am not mistaken this is pretty much how the authors of the Astronomical Almanac calculate their position tables for the celestial bodies for navigation purposes.

Please note that the difference between the tropical year and the sidereal year did not figure in any of this. As I think I understand it, this comes into play only when we express the elapsed time between these phase events in terms of the Gregorian calendar, which is based on the tropical year to accommodate the cultural wish to keep the calendar dates in sync with the seasons over a period of many centuries.

11. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by Hornblower
Please note that the difference between the tropical year and the sidereal year did not figure in any of this. As I think I understand it, this comes into play only when we express the elapsed time between these phase events in terms of the Gregorian calendar, which is based on the tropical year to accommodate the cultural wish to keep the calendar dates in sync with the seasons over a period of many centuries.
Too bad that no difference, because they should be.
(calendar does not affect the periods, phases and cycles of the Moon and planets, or stars).

Currently we calculate the phases using the incomplete orbital period, ie in the rotating reference frame (we do not spin - only frame of reference), not in the inertial frame in which the year is 360 degrees = sidereal year.

However, the observed phases does not depend on the reference system used in the calculation.

phase: f = 2pi / T * t, or cycles: n = f/2pi = t / T;
T - period of a full rotation of 360 degrees, no less.

Now go to the rotating frame of reference:
w '= w - W; T' = 2pi / w';

phase: f '= 2pi / T' * t;

You can see that: f '<> f, for W = 2pi / P, P = 25800 years.

Phase is incorrect, because in a rotating frame of reference, we have to correct the abstract rotation, because we do not actually spin.

df = f - f '= wt - w't = wt - (w - W)t = Wt = 2pi / P * t =~ 20 minutes / year;

But we never adjust this - we calculate directly from the tropical year (as if it was the orbital period), and phases are correct! (nobody noticed Saros cycle delay of 6 hours for hundreds of years.)

Why?
I suppose the Solar System really spins, and therefore it does not need to be corrected - because this is not a fictitious rotation (mathematical figure - an abstract frame of reference), but real.

w' = w - W; but: w'' = w' + W = w;

a = W^2 r = 8.9 e-12 m/s^2; for W = 2pi/P; r = 1au.

Orbital acceleration: a_c = 0.006 m/s^2;

sqrt(a_c / a) =~ 25800 = P/T !
Orbital period is inversely proportional to the square root of the acceleration.
Last edited by Alsor; 2012-Jan-29 at 01:08 AM.

12. Originally Posted by Alsor
Too bad that no difference, because they should be.
(calendar does not affect the periods, phases and cycles of the Moon and planets, or stars).

Currently we calculate the phases using the incomplete orbital period, ie in the rotating reference frame (we do not spin - only frame of reference), not in the inertial frame in which the year is 360 degrees = sidereal year.

However, the observed phases does not depend on the reference system used in the calculation.

phase: f = 2pi / T * t, or cycles: n = f/2pi = t / T;
T - period of a full rotation of 360 degrees, no less.

Now go to the rotating frame of reference:
w '= w - W; T' = 2pi / w';

phase: f '= 2pi / T' * t;

You can see that: f '<> f, for W = 2pi / P, P = 25800 years.

Phase is incorrect, because in a rotating frame of reference, we have to correct the abstract rotation, because we do not actually spin.

df = f - f '= wt - w't = wt - (w - W)t = Wt = 2pi / P * t =~ 20 minutes / year;

But we never adjust this - we calculate directly from the tropical year (as if it was the orbital period), and phases are correct! (nobody noticed Saros cycle delay of 6 hours for hundreds of years.)

Why?
I suppose the Solar System really spins, and therefore it does not need to be corrected - because this is not a fictitious rotation (mathematical figure - an abstract frame of reference), but real.

w' = w - W; but: w'' = w' + W = w;

a = W^2 r = 8.9 e-12 m/s^2; for W = 2pi/P; r = 1au.

Orbital acceleration: a_c = 0.006 m/s^2;

sqrt(a_c / a) =~ 25800 = P/T !
Orbital period is inversely proportional to the square root of the acceleration.
I am having trouble following your algebra, but it appears that you are doing nothing more than presenting an algebraic expression for the difference between the tropical and siderial years. Nowhere am I seeing an expression for the time required for the Moon to reach a given angular separation from the Sun on the celestial sphere. You appear to be contemplating a possible explanation for the lack of an expected discrepancy in that calculated time when you have yet to show that any such discrepancy would even exist in theory according to calculations.

I cannot make any sense out of your remarks about orbital acceleration or why it is even relevant to phase calculations.

13. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by Hornblower
I am having trouble following your algebra, but it appears that you are doing nothing more than presenting an algebraic expression for the difference between the tropical and siderial years. Nowhere am I seeing an expression for the time required for the Moon to reach a given angular separation from the Sun on the celestial sphere. You appear to be contemplating a possible explanation for the lack of an expected discrepancy in that calculated time when you have yet to show that any such discrepancy would even exist in theory according to calculations.

I cannot make any sense out of your remarks about orbital acceleration or why it is even relevant to phase calculations.
It is very simple, but only from a mathematical point of view.
You are trying to grasp it straight intuitively, which is much more difficult.

You might set periods: the Moon and Earth: Tm = 1 and T = 12.5.
Then draw a full circle and count rotations, noting points of conjunction.
Then change the period to T '= 12 and count again.

You now have a different circle?
Do you run with a period of 12.5, and along the same circle, nothing has changed.

Arbitrarily chosen period is not relevant to the observed cycles - it does not exist from the geometrical point of view.

14. ... and all of that most excellent summery is right and correct.. as Hornblower has said..

Thus my understanding of the question has gone down the drain...I see no error.

but I did notice the use of a word that does not exist..' speeded ' is sped. In accordance with speed. ( tense )..

and if thats all that is wrong... we are fine.. I still do not understand what 'Alsor' is suggesting.

15. Hi Alsor.
Please provide a numerical example of the issue.
Formulas are Clingan to me without a numerical example.

16. Originally Posted by a1call
Please provide a numerical example of the issue.
My guess is yes the Solar system spins | at a very slow rate | once per each
crossing of the Galaxies equator

as far as an example | i have not yet learned HOW to do animations | if i could i would:

17. 19 tropical years = 6939.602 days (12 * 354 day years + 7 * 384 day years + 3.6 days)
235 synodic months (lunar phases) = 6939.688 days (Metonic period by definition)
254 sidereal months (lunar orbits) = 6939.702 days (19 + 235 = 254)
255 draconic months (lunar nodes) = 6939.1161 days
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonic_cycle

The underlined cycles are synced to a precision of less than 2 hours in 19 tropical years or 12.4 parts per million.

Synodic month

This is the average period of the Moon's revolution with respect to the line joining the Sun and Earth. The synodic month is the period of the Moon's phases, because the Moon's appearance depends on the position of the Moon with respect to the Sun as seen from the Earth.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synodic_month

*- This apparent sync has been somehow known since the time of the Babylonians and was used in their calendar(As well as the ancient Jews and the ancient Greeks).

*- The mainstream science regards this apparent sync as a coincidence.
Last edited by a1call; 2012-Jan-29 at 06:58 PM.

18. To be fare it must be added that all objects are in motion. A relativity is apparent between objects..

That objects of mass are involved in a orbital tracking of annular period. Different for each body.

That the whole mass of the Solar system can be said to have a orbital velocity and period.

and so to for all other objects of reference.. Every star of the Milkyway are part of that motion..

That we call the apparent motion of Earth's path around the central mass of this Solar system to

Return to the position of one revolution can and is NOT a exact science.. called a year.

The problem I see with your calculations of periods is that nothing is EVER where it was again..

Everything is moving..

19. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
True Earth's orbital period is probably little shorten than tropical yerar - about 10s.

The problem I see with your calculations of periods is that nothing is EVER where it was again.
It also can be verified.

Assuming that the solar system is spinning, then the Moon's current orbital period is slightly longer due to the additional centrifugal force.

In the simulation in inertial frame, ie, without spin, and correct data for the planets and the Sun, the Earth's period should be consistent with sidereal year, while the lunar orbital period should be shorter, by about: T / P = 1y / 25800y (synodic period should also to shorten).

This is a consequence of Kepler's laws.

Ts = 29.53058886 d = 2551443s

2551443s / 25800 = ~ 100s

... somewhat underestimated, because here is yet another centrifugal - directly between the Earth and Moon.

Should be shortened about 100s, nearly 2 minutes.
This is quite a significant difference - it will be easily seen.

20. Originally Posted by Alsor
... Assuming that the solar system is spinning, then the Moon's current orbital period is slightly longer due to the additional centrifugal force. ...
I've avoided getting into this till now because I felt I needed to know how you were using the terms to see what you mean... there are a lot of possible ambiguities in the way you have expressed these ideas.

Now I am asking you what you mean by "the solar system" when you say it is spinning? The solar system is a term we use to include the Sun, and all of the objects orbiting it, and at times to also include the solar wind, solar magnetic fields, and the space that includes all of these things. Sometimes the term includes the Oort cloud, and sometimes it is used to only go out as far as the heliopause. BUT, my point is that unless you are working on some theory that there is an aether in which all of these things move, the idea that all of these things could be said to be spinning in some uniform way is not a physical description. You could make some kind of Ptolemaic argument that there is some outer sphere driving everything else that accounts for some calendrical differences, fine. No need to argue against that unless you then try to imply a physical connection. There is no aether, and the solar system as a whole does not spin (though I like HUb' 's thought that once per galactic orbit (200 million years) or Galactic equator crossing (25,000 years roughly) you could say that some kind of rotation has occurred.

21. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by antoniseb
Now I am asking you what you mean by "the solar system" when you say it is spinning?
Helical motion, like ions, electrons in the ionosphere.

Originally Posted by antoniseb
There is no aether, and the solar system as a whole does not spin (though I like HUb' 's thought that once per galactic orbit (200 million years) or Galactic equator crossing (25,000 years roughly) you could say that some kind of rotation has occurred.
Officialy the Sun moves about 16 km/s in local buble.
Sun's motion around the galaxy is not observed.

22. Originally Posted by Alsor
Helical motion, like ions, electrons in the ionosphere. ...
If you are asking if every object in our solar system is on some kind of helical path through the galaxy... no, no chance. We have been observing long enough and with enough accuracy that this would have been observed... but the very fact that you are asking implies that you are speculating that there could be some force making this happen powerful enough to move the Sun and all the planets on a helical path. Yet the measuments you are using to justify this are only related to factors in the calendar, and the precession of the Earth's rotation and the movement of the Moon all of which are understood to many significant digits with no such motion required to explain them, and no outside force.

23. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by antoniseb
Yet the measuments you are using to justify this are only related to factors in the calendar, and the precession of the Earth's rotation and the movement of the Moon all of which are understood to many significant digits with no such motion required to explain them, and no outside force.
The calculations on sidereal year are incorrect - 6 hours on the Saros fault.

The transformation to a rotating system is not equivalent with real rotation, and these calculations suggest just that.

24. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
I've stayed out of it also, but I've been trying to shoot a hole in a conceptual picture, and I can't. Could be that I just don't see the problem, so if someone else sees the problem, by all means, let me know. Alsor seems to want to explain the precession by having the whole solar system spin. That means, the north celestial pole, extending out into the sky, would still trace out a circle in the sky through the constellations. However, it does this by the Earth actually changing it's location, in the orbit, to point in a different direction, instead of the Earth staying in the same place, in the orbit, precessing to change the direction the north pole points.

It appears to me, and this is what I've been trying find a problem with, that to do this with a rotating solar system, the Earth's axial tilt would be fixed, with respect to the sun, at the same point in the orbit. For instance, let the Earth's tilt point toward the sun at perihelion. As the solar system rotated, when the Earth returns to the point of perihelion, the perihelion has moved a bit. When the Earth catches up, the north celestial pole is pointing in a different direction, due to the different position of the perihelion, but it is still pointing toward the sun. This continues over the entire solar system rotation (~25,800 years), producing the apparent circle in the sky. In the case of precession, the perihelion stays in the same place, and the Earth's north pole moves a bit due to precession, which moves the north celestial pole. In this case, the Earth's perihelion stays in the same place, and it's the Earth's north pole that precesses over the ~25,000 years. At the halfway point in the ~25,000 years, the tilt is pointing away from the sun. The precession also produces the circle in the sky. I realize that this example is extremely simplified (for one thing, the perihelion itself precesses), and the actual position of the axial tilt is not toward the sun at perihelion (it's actual almost opposite), but it still should be good enough to illustrate why the solar system doesn't spin. As I am quite sure our instruments could detect a fixed, with respect to the sun, axial tilt.

And yes, before anyone says anything, I know the position of the axial tilt changes through out year, that's why there are seasons. Remember, I'm talking about the position of the axial tilt at the same point in the orbit. If there are problems picturing this, I'm quite sure it's my inability to convey the idea.

25. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by Tensor
And yes, before anyone says anything, I know the position of the axial tilt changes through out year, that's why there are seasons. Remember, I'm talking about the position of the axial tilt at the same point in the orbit. If there are problems picturing this, I'm quite sure it's my inability to convey the idea.
No. The observed (local) parameters remain unaffected.

Replace only currently used in the calculations the rotation of the reference system:
w' = w - W.

by the real rotation:
w_full = w + W.

In this way we obtain full compliance of calculations with the observations:

Earth orbits the Sun: 360 deg - 50'' in the tropical year.
The axis rotates backwards, so at this moment we have the Sun where it should be.
At the same time, the entire solar system revolves about +50''.

Total: 360 degrees, and with an orbital period equal to tropical year.

26. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by Alsor
No. The observed (local) parameters remain unaffected.
I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Alsor
Replace only currently used in the calculations the rotation of the reference system:
w' = w - W.

by the real rotation:
w_full = w + W.
These two mean nothing as the precession and rotation would give the same answer, for the timing of the year.

Originally Posted by Alsor
In this way we obtain full compliance of calculations with the observations:

Earth orbits the Sun: 360 deg - 50'' in the tropical year.
The axis rotates backwards, so at this moment we have the Sun where it should be.
Define "axis rotating backwards". This sounds suspiciously like "precession", where the axis rotates.

Originally Posted by Alsor
At the same time, the entire solar system revolves about +50''.
But that's just it, without precession, the axial tilt is at the same point as it was the previous orbit.

Originally Posted by Alsor
Total: 360 degrees, and with an orbital period equal to tropical year.
What you wrote in your post(about backwards rotation) was not in your OP or in post #9, where you asked for any observations that would exclude such a rotation. My post provided such an observation. You have now added a rotation to the axis, which is a precession, is this what you mean? And why wasn't this rotation of the axis part of your OP and post #9?

27. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Precession is backward, and in sync - Cassini's Laws (probably generalised).

28. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by Alsor
Precession is backward, and in sync - Cassini's Laws (probably generalised).
So, you are saying that the Earth precesses, and just happens to precess at the exact same rate as the solar system rotates, right?

29. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by Tensor
So, you are saying that the Earth precesses, and just happens to precess at the exact same rate as the solar system rotates, right?

w' = w - W;

w'' = w' + W = w;

That's what the calculation shows.

Only in this way we get a full cycle without changing the period.

The change of reference system is nothing - nothing changes, but the period must be 360 degrees, so there is no other way.

30. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by Alsor
w' = w - W;

w'' = w' + W = w;

That's what the calculation shows.

Only in this way we get a full cycle without changing the period.

The change of reference system is nothing - nothing changes, but the period must be 360 degrees, so there is no other way.
So lets review. You ask for any observation that would falsify a rotating solar system, without mentioning an Earth whose axis precedes. Then when presented with an observation that would falsify a rotating solar system, you introduce a precession of Earth's axis, completely ad hoc, to be able to keep a rotating solar system. Since the Earth's precession with a rotating solar system is the same as Earth's precession without a rotating solar system, why bother with a rotating solar system? Just use precession, as is done now.

Posting Permissions

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