Solar researcher offers 10K reward for published dynamic version of static analysis

Posted: January 7, 2012 by Rog Tallbloke in Astronomy, Astrophysics, Solar physics, solar system dynamics

Independent Solar researcher Patrick Geryl has contacted me to ask if I can help find someone with the necessary skills and qualifications who can convert his static analysis of solar activity changes into a dynamic model and get it published in a recognised astronomical journal.

As a reward for the effort involved, Patrick is offering $10,000 dollars or currency equivalent to the person who steps up and achieves this task. Patrick writes:

Dear Sir,

Enclosed the static theory of the most wanted astronomical theory… See PDF file

It concerns a new mathematical principle!

I am looking for somebody who can make the Dynamic approach… it is too complicated for me… because there are 3 unknowns in it…

Therefore I want to make a contest…

The first who can make the Dynamic Approach and get it published in an offical Astronomical Journal can get a 10,000 dollar (ten thousand) reward from me…

Enclosed the latest findings in the PDF

Sincerely,

Patrick Geryl

Anyone who has a realistic chance of getting published in such a journal will probably hold a relevant qualification in astronomy, astrophysics, mathematics or related discipline but anyone can try. They are welcome to register their interest here and I will contact them by email to send the relevant extra spreadsheet documents.

To give a taste of what Patrick has been researching, you can refer to the documents below, and also visit a previous guest post he made here, which due to other things which were happening at the time, did not receive the degree of attention it deserved.

The Suns Eleven Year Magnetic Reversal Theory Update 2012

The Internal Rotation of the Sun

equator speed!!!!!

Article Prof Callebaut Equator Rotation

Calculation Eleven Year Solar Rotation Theory

Comments
  1. Doug Proctor says:

    Could an abstract be done on both the relevance of the dynamic theory vs the static (or other) and the implications should the theory be proven? In the “can”, “will”, and “does” manner rather than the “might”, “should” or “could” manner of warmist thought?

    I have an analytical mind and background, but I find the repercussions of even my own discipline (geology) to be a) the most important part of the research, and b) the most difficult to squeeze out of my colleagues. The real fun is in the declaratives, but safety is in the conditionals.

  2. Víctor Cruz says:

    I am interested, pelase send me any further info.

    Greetings

    Víctor

    [reply] Thanks Victor, watch your email and spam filter for info.

  3. suricat says:

    Not my subject, but I’m curious. Don’t send any info, I’ll talk on the ‘old thread’.

    Best regards, Ray.

  4. markus says:

    Anybody at the CRU will do it. But, they will expect you to inform them what conclusion you would like drawn first.

    [Reply] I did email Phil Jones, but when he heard the spreadsheets were in excel format, he declined. ;)

  5. Tenuc says:

    markus says:
    January 7, 2012 at 9:08 pm
    “Anybody at the CRU will do it. But, they will expect you to inform them what conclusion you would like drawn first.”… LOL… ;-)

    You’re right Marcus – I think we need at least one real scientist for this job.

  6. Aussie says:

    Roger, thanks for the good laugh re: Phil Jones and the CRU :)

    At one point a few years ago I was an expert in excel, even if the expertise was limited!!

  7. gallopingcamel says:

    There are some bold folks who have put forward the hypothesis that solar activity has a more powerful effect on climate than CO2 does. One of them has been so bold as to make predictions to the year 2100 and then superimpose his predictions on the IPCC’s AR4 predictions.

    Scafetta’s model performs better than any IPCC model when it comes to backcasting and looks way more plausible when it comes to forecasting. Reality has already departed sharply from the IPCC’s predictions made only four years ago (2007). It won’t take long to see which hypothesis holds water.

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_models_comparison_ATP.pdf

    Enjoy Scafetta’s Figure 5.

  8. Patrick, Prof Claes Johnson is pretty good at maths and he has collaborated with others about fluid dynamics see here http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/ and have a look at the draft books on the left ” the secret of flight”, “the secret of sailing” as well as “computational thermodynamics”. Claes also has a new wordpress website http://claesjohnsonmathscience.wordpress.com/ I have made the occasional comment. You can find his email address on his websites. A few such as SOD (who has little unterstanding of engineering subjects) have attacked some of his assumptions but as far as I can ascertain no one has been able to fault Claes’ mathematics.
    My main concerns have been that assumptions need to be clearly spelt out, and that these assumptions need to be realistic ie justified by measurement and experimentation. For example at a liquid (water) surface when considering heat transfer one can not ignore heat transfer by phase change and convection (natural or forced by winds), which are more important than radiation, nor when looking at the rate of heat transfer can one ignore the convective heat transfer inside the liquid to the surface. In a boiler when there is a large temperature difference between a flame (maybe 2500C) and a wall ( maybe 750C) one can assume as a first approximation that radiation dominates (if it is a coal flame with high emissivity) but convection can not be ignored.
    The other thing one needs to be concerned about in maths is the dimensions of the variables and constants. If one eliminates a constant which has dimensions from an equation the remaining equation will no longer be correct. Engineers like to work with dimensionless numbers such as the Reynolds number. I recall that Gavin Schmidt (of real climate) was asked about the Schmidt number and he replied (probably after looking it up on Wiki) that it was not relevent. Either his understanding is limited or he deliberately wants to avoid the complexities inherent in climate assessment (or there could be a large measure of both)

  9. [...] Solar researcher offers 10K reward for published dynamic version of static analysis [...]

  10. tchannon says:

    cementafriend, a quick look at claesjohnsonmathscience showed a prior item to do with aerofoils and why things fly.

    Not so.

    This hits the same problem as I am seeing with Nickolov and Zeller, a problem of perception, top down whilst missing top down.

    On that site there is convoluted writing from every which way about aerofoils and airflow whilst completely missing what actually generates the force, what keeps aircraft up. (*)

    The force is the inertial reaction from accelerating a fluid, air in that instance. The aerofoil merely tries to do this with low losses, a detail of process. An aircraft tends to leave a long trail of twin counter rotating vortex, the air spun earthwards.


    Image hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/
    (the circumstances of the photo, how come? Was it planned?)

    N&Z are pointing out there are reasonable maths to do with compression of gas by gravity, where the fundamental is more about different places and variation over long time periods.

    The majority snap to the weather and today, try and wrestle with the internal details, which do need sorting out, yet losing sight of the elephant is unwise.

    This might be part of why some people fail to see why the radiative greenhouse gas problem is destroyed, assuming of course the theory is correct. The point being that in the greater case these notorious gases have no place, do nothing, therefore in the localised case they can do nothing unless there is some remarkable special case. That needs argument.

    Direct gravity induced temperature profile? No, whilst there might be a miniscule effect, examination of works on caves and chambers demonstrates no obvious effect.

    My current suspicion is the presence of asymmetric conditions caused by gravity, hence symmetric math fails. Still thinking on this.

    (*) this might help on lift and it does discuss some of the reasons behind confusion

    http://amasci.com/wing/airfoil.html

  11. ab says:

    Dear Sir
    kindly email me all details.Dont know whether will try for it ot not but i would like to see. may be or may be not i try.

    thanks
    ab

  12. Patrick Geryl says:

    You can mail me at patrick.geryl @ skynet.be

  13. Edgars says:

    Dear Geryl!

    You are right. Do not expect, that mainstream science can get out of their mistakes soon. We need a pranameter to follow solar/terrestrial trends.

    Possibly You can find useful our viewpoint:

    http://matterirradiatedfields.wordpress.com/self-rotating-liquid-mass-generated-field/

    http://matterirradiatedfields.wordpress.com/about/rlf-interaction-with-galactic-center/

    http://matterirradiatedfields.wordpress.com/about/pole-shift-as-effect-of-changes-in-mantle-viscosity/

    Have fun,
    Edgars