Source: Scientist has done terrible insights about the change of planetary orbits - micetimes.asia All of this was connected somehow with the change of the Earth’s orbit under the influence of Jupiter and Venus. In an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, the scientists said that geologists under the supervision of Professor Dennis Kent of Rutgers University in New Brunswick for the first time found compelling evidence of these geological changes, has found rock samples that are actually like “taping” of what is happening on our planet. . . . Source: Apocalypse imminent? Jupiter and Venus exerts gravitational pull on earth A few months ago, experts in NASA have revealed that there is a ninth planet on the edge of our solar systems and it is slowly pulling its strings. Conspiracy theorists claimed that the space agency has hinted about Planet X alias Nibiru with this new revelation. According to conspiracy theorists, Nibiru is a killer planet lurking on the edge of our solar system. Proponents of this theory including David Meade claim that mass devastation will happen when Nibiru hit earth with its full fury. Recently, Meade predicted that Nibiru will appear in the skies between May and December 2018. Good thing Mars has no effect . . . This is true, flat-earth nonsense. Snopes: FACT CHECK: NASA Warns 'Planet X' Is Headed Straight for Earth? This report was untrue, just another clickbait fabrication originating with News4KTLA, a fake news site that has appropriated the call letters of a legitimate Los Angeles television station and news outlet (KTLA). NASA has never issued any such warning, nor reported the existence of any “rogue planet.” In fact, NASA has stated just the opposite, that no planet such as “Niburu” is known to exist Bob Wilson
Nibiru stories never had any 'pull' on me. Contrariwise, a very weak (Earth) climate effect has been linked to Venus' and Jupiter's gravitational interactions. These appear to slightly alter components of Milankovich cycles which are generally accepted to 'power' climate variations. These effects are weak and researchers had to look very carefully to find them. I've not closely followed media interpretations of Kent's research. Examples presented above are not very appealing.
What bothered me: Fgavity ~= (M1 + M2) / (d**2) Venus = 4.87 (10**24 kg), 108.2 (10**6 km) distance to Sun Earth = 5.97 (10**24 kg), 149.6 (10**6 km) Mars = 0.642 (10**24 kg), 227.9 (10**6 km) Jupiter = 1898 (10**24 kg), 778.6 (10**6 km) Venus-Earth :: (4.87 + 5.97) / ( (108.2 - 149.6) **2) = 10.84 / (-41.4) **2 10.84 / 1714.0 = 0.006324 Earth-Mars :: (5.97 + 0.642) / ( (149.6 - 227.9) **2) = 6.61 / (-78.3) **2 6.61 / 4064.6 = 0.001626 Earth-Jupiter :: (5.97 + 1898) / ( (149.6 - 778.6) **2) = 1903.9 / (-1629) **2 1903.9 / 2657705.6 = 0.0007163 Venus exerts a measurable force. Mars exerts 1/5th that force. Jupiter is 1/10th the force. Knowing the formula, I knew Mars had a bigger effect than Jupiter because it is so much closer but Mars was never mentioned. Note, these are just rough order of magnitude. A more sophisticated model would include orbital periods. I'm OK with this effect but it is cyclically. Except for tidal resistance effects, I'm not setting my hair on fire. Rather, we've seen long, incessant claims that this is the ONLY thing drive earth's energy balance. Or is it 'sun spots' . . . Bob Wilson
Just LOOK at all those lovely equations! I expect that Kent would be amenable to discussing whether their consideration of Mars-induced Earth wobbles was inadequate. In research (separate from media clicks), serious folks are looking down as far as possible into factors much smaller than long-term solar output, long-term plate-tectonics tempo, and shorter-term infrared trapping in atmosphere. Goal of fully knowing Earth climate responses across time scales may be beyond our reach. Because, oh, that frisky vexing ocean! If we could anticipate climate response to CO2 doubling, it would require much finer knowledge of that vexing ocean. If we can't, it will be hard to narrow our climate expectations and thus discuss appropriate responses.
I don't know Kent from Nigel Farage. Just to omit a significant, orbital force, well it is a little 'Mojo' don't 'cha know. I think of the ocean as another 'boiling water' with similar characteristics to the more rapid atmosphere motions but at 600 times the density. I don't see either as predictable except in very short intervals that soon become chaotic. Just emerging from this 'noise' are larger, reproducible patterns that climate models can approach giving us some understanding. I can know the probability of playing dice without predicting the results of any visit to a table. With that knowledge I can minimize the 'house advantage' yet still enjoy the play. Source: Does God Play Dice - Stephen Hawking This lecture is about whether we can predict the future, or whether it is arbitrary and random. In ancient times, the world must have seemed pretty arbitrary. Disasters such as floods or diseases must have seemed to happen without warning, or apparent reason. Primitive people attributed such natural phenomena, to a pantheon of gods and goddesses, who behaved in a capricious and whimsical way. There was no way to predict what they would do, and the only hope was to win favour by gifts or actions. Many people still partially subscribe to this belief, and try to make a pact with fortune. They offer to do certain things, if only they can get an A-grade for a course, or pass their driving test. . . . In effect what he [Laplace rjw] said was, that if at one time, we knew the positions and speeds of all the particles in the universe, then we could calculate their behaviour at any other time, in the past or future. There is a probably apocryphal story, that when Laplace was asked by Napoleon, how God fitted into this system, he replied, 'Sire, I have not needed that hypothesis.' I don't think that Laplace was claiming that God didn't exist. It is just that He doesn't intervene, to break the laws of Science. That must be the position of every scientist. A scientific law, is not a scientific law, if it only holds when some supernatural being, decides to let things run, and not intervene. <very good stuff that should be read!> Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly. . . . Good, bad, or ugly, I am content to understand what the models tell us without having to know every thermal or ocean current. It doesn't mean throwing up my hands in frustration as much as trying to surf what a Monte Carlo model let's us understand. Recently, the news included "Trump White House axes Nasa research into greenhouse gas" but I don't care because over time, the house advantage, Natural Laws rule. Ignoring them today does not negate their 'rediscovery' in the future. So I am sanguine about the future. After all, the 'flat earth' exists but I don't have to drink that koolaid. Bob Wilson
SciAm-- 60 Second Science: Jupiter and Venus Squeeze Earth's Orbit Including orbital periods is essential to these sorts of analyses. Synchronously related orbitals, and semi- and sub-synchronous relations, will have much greater impact over time than non-synchronous relations. Such relations are associated with the ring gaps in Saturn. Perhaps a better term is resonance: Orbital resonance - Wikipedia
Thanks for a credible source: "It's a clock. And so being able to have a precise chronometer we can relate things like speciation events, or dispersals of various life forms. It allows us to look at these things and try to understand what's driving them." As for whether modern-day humans need to worry about this 405,000-year oscillation? "This is probably pretty low down the list of things to be concerned about. How much CO2 we're putting in the atmosphere, that's of a more immediate concern." Because, despite our planetary neighbors’ best efforts, our orbit has barely budged as we’ve observed our climate change. My problem remains, Mars. Any planetary model that does not include this planet has an obvious omission. Even this source identifies a Mars-Earth effect. That was what originally clued me to a problem. I can appreciate the paleo study of core analysis but gosh darn, leaving out that famous red planet? Bob Wilson
Just based on past readings, not on this particular new topic outbreak, I strongly suspect that Mars and the other planets were not actually left out. Rather, they did not appear to be significant contributors to this particular mechanism, of Earth's orbital eccentricity periodically cycling over a certain range. E.g. any orbital resonances with Mars didn't line up correctly to contribute to this pattern.
The news article about this on Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory's site. In Ancient Rocks, Scientists See a Climate Cycle Working Across Deep Time | Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
I sent an e-mail to Dr. Kent asking for details about the orbital mechanics model. I shared how I calculated the relative forces of Venus-to-Earth, Earth-to-Mars, and Earth-to-Jupiter. Bob Wilson
I received the following reply: Actually, Mars is not neglected but instead is responsible for a much longer resonance (2.4 million year period calculated from modern originate motions but only ~1.75 Myr in late Triassic climate record, a difference that can be ascribed to chaotic diffusion). Other planets are involved at other periodicities. Send me a PM if you have further questions. What he tells me is Earth-Moon-Mars are treated as a unified body whose orbital mechanics are driven by a single, summary effect. I have the paper he references and pending a through review, I remain skeptical. Earth and Mars have distinctly different orbital periods that pending a through investigation suggests they are not linked but separate orbital mechanics. Bob Wilson
Communication with author and reporting outcome is worth like-clicking. Readers might be surprised by the degree to which many authors will personally engage with John Q Citizen. But a first step must be taken...
This is what I sent him: Hi Dr. Kent, I've been reading the news summaries about the core sample analysis and noticed only Venus and Jupiter were mentioned. This surprised me because Mars is much closer to earth than Jupiter. So I used: F ~= (m1 + m2) / (d **2) m1 - mass of first planet m2 - mass of second planet d - distance between them Using commonly reported distances and mass for Venus-Earth, Earth-Mars, and Earth-Jupiter, I calculated proportionate force of: 0.006324 ~= Venus to Earth 0.001626 ~= Earth to Mars 0.0007163 ~= Earth to Jupiter It looks like Earth to Mars has double the force of Earth to Jupiter and 1/5th the Venus to Earth force. So why was Mars omitted? Could you can point me to the study or model of the planetary effects on Earth's orbit? Look, I can be persuaded by facts and data regardless of how much work it takes me to understand. So my focus is on how Mars can be ignored in Solar system dynamics. It has nothing to do with anything but ordinary physics. Bob Wilson
Somewhere on the web there was a site with graphical displays of stable multi-body co-orbits. Where "multi" was a lot. More than anything it looked like balls juggling themselves.
The problem is such variations are not intuitive obvious. I am not immune to such opinions as much as driven by the relative orbital forces. On the macro-scale, Newton rules. Now change the dimensions to atomic levels and I am completely content to enter the world of quantum physics. But that is not the case in this situation. As for hominids, an Earth-Mars hypothesis is not impossible but faces a severe technical challenge. Hanson wrote that he was doing an orbital physics analysis when he found the metrics did not match the orbital mechanics model. That along with a century of papers led him realized that CO{2} was the problem. I am not so easily convinced. Bob Wilson
