A Variations in Sun-Earth distance with a 2000-year cycle?

  • Thread starter Genava
  • Start date
37
33
Summary
Debate about Valentina Zharkova last publication in Scientific Reports
Hi,

I see that a newspaper is making a claim that Zharkova identified a 2000-year cycle causing some significant variations in Sun-Earth distance with a cycle of 2000 years, seemingly because of the perturbations caused by Jupiter making the Sun orbiting a barycentre slightly eccentric. This finding is hard to believe and I want to know the opinions of some peoples that are well-educated in the subject of celestial mechanics.

"Her latest work, published in Scientific Reports, concentrates on a 2000-year cycle that varies the distance between Earth and the sun."

Here the article, with open access:

"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."

Best,

Genava
 
1,889
192
I can't find any calculation of distance of the earth. The Solar Inertial Motion is caused by attraction from the big planets, and the earth is attracted by the same planets. Of course this isn't identical, but I think his will likely cancel most of the effects.
I can find no calculation of the earth distance in this paper or the referenced
Charvatova, I. Can origin of the 2400-year cycle of solar activity be caused by solar inertial motion? AnnGeo 18, 399–405 (2000).
It should be easy to do with a computer.
 
37
33
I can't find any calculation of distance of the earth. The Solar Inertial Motion is caused by attraction from the big planets, and the earth is attracted by the same planets. Of course this isn't identical, but I think his will likely cancel most of the effects.
I can find no calculation of the earth distance in this paper or the referenced
Charvatova, I. Can origin of the 2400-year cycle of solar activity be caused by solar inertial motion? AnnGeo 18, 399–405 (2000).
It should be easy to do with a computer.
Thank you. Indeed, she is not calculating the orbits and she has simply misunderstood the findings from other scientists and she has interpreted the Solar Inertial Motion from the view that the Earth orbit is fixed and this is wrong. The paper will be probably retracted, notably for this reason.

Here some explanations about the issue:
 
1,889
192
Thank you. Indeed, she is not calculating the orbits and she has simply misunderstood the findings from other scientists and she has interpreted the Solar Inertial Motion from the view that the Earth orbit is fixed and this is wrong. The paper will be probably retracted, notably for this reason.
Milankovic already calculated the influence of the big planets on the eccentricy of the earth orbit over a hundred years ago. You'd think someone would have noticed the errprs by now.
 

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
22,972
5,239
The paper will be probably retracted, notably for this reason.
Almost certainly not, since that's only part of the paper. (IF I were the editor, I would have rejected it and told her to submit separate papers)
 
37
33
Almost certainly not, since that's only part of the paper. (IF I were the editor, I would have rejected it and told her to submit separate papers)
It would have been an option but it seems there are other issues (figure possibly stolen without credits, excessive conclusions etc.) according to the discussion in pubpeer. Moreover, Zharkova refuses to acknowledge the issue with her view about the Sun-Earth distance:
 

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
22,972
5,239
Splitting the paper would have allowed the magnetic part and the celestial mechanical parts to be discussed separately. If one part is right (or wrong) it doesn't mean the other part is. That's why I would have rejected it and told them to submit separate papers.
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"Variations in Sun-Earth distance with a 2000-year cycle?" You must log in or register to reply here.

Related Threads for: Variations in Sun-Earth distance with a 2000-year cycle?

B
  • Posted
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
10K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top