Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Taking Advantage of a Sharply Changing Environment -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doug R who wrote (2156)	8/5/2019 5:56:24 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6365

I understand that Zharkova's work is all centred on the relationship of the double dynamo of moving plasma currents within the suns structure and this may possibly be perturbed (set into motion) by the orbit of the larger planets (Saturn and Jupiter. I also realize her previous works just studied the output of the sun irrespective of the movements of the solar system. I do get all that. However this last paper has this paragraph in it... "Since the Sun moves around the solar system barycenter, it implies that it also shifts around the main focus of the Earth orbit being either closer to its perihelion or to its aphelion. If the Earth rotates around the Sun undisturbed by inertial motion, then the distances to its perihelion will be 1.47?×?108 km and to it aphelion 1.52?×?108 km. The solar inertial motion means for the Earth that the distance between the Sun and the Earth has to significantly change (up to 0.02 of a.u) at the extreme positions of SIM, and so does the average solar irradiance, which is inversely proportional to the squared distance between the Sun and Earth." [My italics and emboldment.] The sun being located at one of the two foci of the Earths ellipsoidal orbit per elementary Newtonian physics. almanac.com I think this is what Zharkova's critics have latched onto, and why they are disregarding the rest of the paper is because of that paragraph and it's inference. The JPL data sets are cited why she is wrong, that the distance from the Earth to the Sun does not alter because of the oscillations of the Sun around the barycenter of the solar system. The Earth and the Sun system has it's own barycentre and the distances stay constant in the form of the ellipse, and the small factors that change the shape of the ellipse over long periods of time. Do I have that right? At the end of the day, I know Zharkova does this work on a shoestring and in addition to her normal academic workload as a little side project she is interested in. Her critics have a wealth of funds and support to draw upon. So if there is a mistake... BFD... it can be corrected and her work on the interactions within the solar double dynamo can stand as they are. Here is the paper. nature.com