A lot of people might visit here, see some fairly technical conversation going on, and wonder, “What’s it all about?” So I thought I’d devote a thread to explaining what we mean when we refer to ‘solar – planetary theory’. This thread is a first attempt at clearly summarizing it, and I hope a stimulating discussion will follow so that we can refine the hastily written outline presented here.
In a nutshell, it is the hypothesis that the solar system is a system in the fullest sense of the word. That is: As well as the sun having a big effect on the planets (warming them with it’s radiation, keeping them in their orbits with it’s gravity, warding off a lot of the galactic cosmic rays from entering with it’s solar wind etc), the planets also have an effect on each other, and on the sun, causing it’s complicated motion around the centre of mass of the solar system, modulating solar magnetic activity and the production of sunspots.
Issac Newton in his famous book ‘Principia Mathematica’ described the motion of the sun around the centre of mass, but held the opinion that ‘the sun feels no forces’ because according to his theory of Gravitation, the sun would be ‘in free-fall’.
So why do proponents of solar-planetary theory think the planets can affect the sun?
Firstly, Newton, although he quantified the gravitational force, didn’t try to explain what gravity was, or how it has it’s affect on matter. “I frame no hypotheses” he famously said. He lived in an age when ‘Natural Philosophy’ was trying to escape ideas which involved ‘action at a distance’. But gravity seemed to be an ‘action at a distance’ force par exellence.
Secondly, Newtons laws of motion deal with idealized objects which are homogenous, rigid, and free of frictional and other forces. We don’t know much about the interior of the sun, but we do know it’s surface layers are much less dense than it’s deeper layers, and that the density gradient from surface to core may not be linear. We also know the surface layers are highly mobile and fluid, and are highly magnetized. This means the sun might get jiggled around internally as it moves in it’s complicated dance around the solar system barycenter.
Thirdly, there appear to be correlations between changes in solar activity (particularly sunspot number) and the inter-related motions of the planets over the course of time. Paul D. Jose in his 1965 paper showed a coincidence between the changes in the sun’s angular momentum as it jiggled around the solar sytem’s center of mass, and the number of sunspots appearing on it’s surface.
So what’s the problem? Why is this a controversial area of research?
If the planets affect the sun, and the sun affects Earth’s climate, discovering how it works might alter the way we view climate change. Small changes in the Earth’s motion coincide with changes in climate, and Paul Vaughan has been discovering some very good correlations between these climate factors and changes in Earth’s motion caused by the other planets and the sun. Petr ‘semi’ Semerad has discovered that changes in Venus and Earth’s angular momentum coincide with the ~11 year sunspot cycles. Geoff Sharp has discovered the big outer planets move in a rhythm coinciding with drops in solar activity every ~178 years, the size of which depend on the phase of the sunspot cycle when the sudden changes in angular momentum of the sun occur.
Another problem is that just like Newton didn’t know how gravity worked (and we still don’t), we don’t yet know for sure what the mechanisms are by which the planetary motions affect the sun and individual planets, although we have a pretty good body of evidence to show they do. Several possible mechanisms have been put forward, and investigations using the available data are ongoing. These include three main areas covered by posts on this blog:
Tidal forces, similar to the tidal effects of the Moon on the Earth.
Gravitational effects on the angular momentum of different parts of the sun as it revolves in it’s peculiar orbit around the centre of mass or ‘Barycenter’ of the solar system (SSB for short).
Electromagnetic effects due to interactions between the solar and interplanetary magnetic fields and the magnetospheres of several of the planets.
Some physicists dismiss these possibilities because they believe the forces involved would be too small to have any effect on the sun. Proponents of the solar- planetary theory disagree, and believe that the possibilities must be quantified, predictions made and tests performed before the hypothesis can be falsified.
What form could these tests take?
What resources are required?
Who’s going to fund a program of investigation?
Answers on a postcard, or just add your thoughts or questions below.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Rog…that should read 172 years.
Thank you for the excellent summary of the solar – planetary theory.
I agree. The Sun is jerked about the center-of-mass of the solar system, like a yo-yo on a string.
And the “density gradient from surface to core may not be linear.”
It certainly is not linear if the solar core is a neutron star.
Neutron star density ~10^15 g/cm^3
Neutron star magnetic field ~10^12 Gauss
Solar cycles and changes in Earth’s climate may be the practical sensor that Dr. Maria Zuber (MIT, Geophysics) and I overlooked in our discussion about ways to detect a neutron core in the Sun when we met at a conference on asteroids at Santa Flavia (near Palermo), Italy in June 2001.
At that time, Maria and her program officer (NASA, as I recall) suggested that measurements they had already discussed on solar quadrupole moments might indicate if such a compact object existed at the core of the Sun.
I never learned if NASA funded Dr. Zuber’s study or the results of her measurements.
The paper I presented on the composition of the Sun (at the institution where Galileo taught) was censored from the proceedings.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Hi Geoff, I mentioned drops in solar activity rather than a specific planetary alignment because of your insights about the timing of the dependence on the effect on the stage of the solar cycle. Therefore it’s probably safest to put a range on the timescale rather than ~17*. What would you suggest? 170-190 years?
From Paul’s phasing graphs, it looks to me like the stage was being set for the Dalton Minimum back in the 1770’s, quite a few years before the UN conjunction. Also, the retrograde jerk on the sun in 1804 doesn’t occur with every UN conjunction, but depends on the relative positions of J&S (pricipally).
Oliver, the irony isn’t lost on me. In a recent reply to Dr S on WUWT when he told me how the Geocentric view was supplanted by the Heliocentric view by 1600 due to the overwhelming evidence and better measurement I pointed out how he’d glossed over the burnng of Giodorni Bruno and the house arrest and telescope confiscation of Galileo by the guardians of orthodoxy along the way. I further pointed out that this tactic was alive and well 500 years later when Halton Arp was denied telescope time following his publicisation of anomalous quasar redshifts.
Hi Rog, its important to understand the different strengths of disturbance that the planets invoke. The drops in solar activity line up precisely with the planetary line ups only varying in their intensity.
Jose only went back to around 1600 to form his 178 year period of the big 4. But he didnt understand the importance of the J/S position and how it varied if we go further back. The 4 planets must be in precise position to achieve Maunder/Sporer type status which is very rare.
If we go back 6000 years that alignment happens on average every 172 years….each time is slightly different and will not follow a regular gap.
Here is a diagram of the perfect position.
Each cycle has around 3 chances to send the Sun into grand minimum, the big ones like the Sporer use all 3 and last 90 years. The 3 chances are the J/S alignment just before U/N conjunction, the middle phase at or near U/N conjunction and the last as U/N move away. We can measure each occurrence/disturbance and judging by the timing determine its strength.
There was no chances around 1770 according to this theory, but 1790 was the first chance which coincided with the start of the Dalton (it came late in an already strong cycle SC4).
Its not purely about U/N conjunction, Landscheidt got this bit wrong also when he predicted a grand minimum for 1990.
Thanks for the further insight Geoff, I know a lot of this is already on your site, and I appreciate you taking the time to help round out the story here. So, if we go with your 1790 date, and solar activity takes a tumble from around 1795 due to the extended decline of SC4 and doesn’t recover until around 1835, how should we summarize a statement of the effect in a single sentence?
“A dropoff in solar activity around the time of the conjunction of Uranus and Neptune which in rare cases can last up to 90 years depending on the relative positions of Jupiter and Saturn and the phasing of the solar cycle”?
Do you think the rest of the piece is ok? I’m looking for omissions as well as corrections.
It is all on my site…but perhaps its too big of a read for most to take it in….I am thinking I might need to get out into live environments to get my points across.
You cant so this in a single sentence.
meant to say “do this”
Oh I agree I can’t do it full justice in a sentence, but as part of a reasonably brief summary with links to fuller explanations…? We need to get the message across at all levels and reading times.
Well, I for one am enjoying this at an entry point level. In the past I’ve got a few take-home messages from posts over at WUWT but it is good to learn more as a change from weather/climate stuff (and the day-job subjects). Perhaps eventually I’ll graduate to feeling ready for Geoff’s site 😉
Heh, thanks for that. Hopefully you’ll find some other stuff here which will help, as well as some in depth cover of some aspects like tidal forces Geoff doesn’t cover at his site. The intention on this thread is to cover all the aspects and link out to more in depth cover of specifics. The blog roll on the right will get you to those individual sites too.
Re: Geoff Sharp 9:19
Although very tricky business, it should be possible to devise an objective index of what you describe with words.
Quote: Paul Vaughan (January 20, 2010 at 5:36 am)
“Although very tricky business, it should be possible to devise an objective index of what you describe with words.”
I agree, Paul. That is exactly what is needed.
This may be another indication of Fate’s use of humor to teach humility:
1. Teaching humility to Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC by flipping the solar switch soon after their prediction of global warming.
2. Teaching humility to Drs. Maria Zuber and Oliver Manuel by providing realistic sensors of the Sun’s dense, energetic neutron core in the form of solar cycles and variability in Earth’s climate.
To live is to learn,
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver, I find your hypothesis that the Sun has a dense neutron core interesting and plausible. I’ll just say for the record though, that if there is transfer of angular momentum from the solar-barycentric orbit to the solar axial spin, a dense core of fundamentally different material to the rest of the sun is not a pre-requisite for the consequent oscillatory flows in my view.
It seems from what I’ve read, that while the surface layers of the Sun are fluid and mobile, the layers below the tachocline act more as a rigid body due to the pressure and gravity of the Sun. Since I doubt you would argue the neutron core you propose would be as large as the volume within the tachocline, I don’t see a conflict here.
I would however,be interested in your view, or anyone elses, as to the change of state which might make the sub-tachocline layers of the Sun behave mechanically differently to the surface layers, such that there is a ‘boundary’ at the tachocline, rather than a simple density gradient.
I agree, tallbloke.
The volume of the neutron star is tiny! Probably a few kilometers across.
Helioseismology not only does not confirm the SSM, it shows evidence for
a.) A dense iron core [1,2]
b.) An abrupt change at 0.95 R [3]
1. Rouse C. A. (1985): Evidence for a small, high-Z, iron-like solar core, Astron. Astrophys. 149, 65-72.
http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/Carl_Rouse_desc.htm
2. Rouse C. A. (1995): Calculation stellar structure. IV. Results using a detailed energy generation subroutine, Astron. Astrophys. 304, 431-439.
3. S. Lefebvre and A. Kosovichev, Ap. J. Lett. (2005)
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0510111
Oliver, very interesting. The link from your site to Rouse’ page is now empty, but you can still see it as it was in oct 2007 here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071029071654/http://www.npaci.edu/online/v5.7/rouse.html
I’ve saved the Lefebvre and A. Kosovichev pdf by right clicking and selecting ‘save as’.
These near surface variations are fascinating, and are going to require some careful study
By the way Oliver, you were saying you couldn’t update your website any more. Why not get a wordpress blog like this one and copy your old data across? That would give you a free and easy way to keep your site up to date. You can get your domain name set up with wordpress too for a very small fee.
Thanks, tallbloke.
I appreciate your suggestion of ways to update my web page.
Being almost computer illiterate, I will try to find a student here to help me.
Dr. Carl Rouse had a PhD degree in astrophysics from CalTech, but he was an honest scientist and he was sidelined.
I was unaware of his work and the similarity of his conclusions to mine until shortly before I met him at the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference on Helioseismology at Big Bear Lake, CA.
A short hyperlink to Dr. Rouse: http://tinyurl.com/y9o99y9
Thanks to the unfolding Climategate scandal, I now understand that the findings by Dr. Rouse and I were opposed not only by NAS (the National Academy of Sciences), but also by INAP (the International Academy of Propaganda)- an international alliance of politicians, scientists & publishers that promote propaganda to divert the attention away from these empirical facts:
1. The Sun exploded 5 x 10^9 years (5 Gyr) ago and ejected all of the material now orbiting the Sun.
2. Climate changes and cycles of solar activity are both related to the Sun’s oscillatory motion about the center of mass of the solar system.
3. The lightest element is Hydrogen (H), element #1. Helium (He) is the next lightest one, element #2. Only the top layer of the Sun’s atmosphere (outer veneer) is 91% H and 9% He!
4. The Sun discards 50,000 billion metric ton of H each year in the solar wind.
5. Gravity is a nuclear force; almost all mass of each atom is in its nucleus.
6. On Earth a neutron decays to a hydrogen atom in ~ 10 min, n => H.
7. In a strong gravitational field the process is reversed, H => n.
8. Solar neutrinos do not oscillate away and H-fusion does not power the Sun.
9. Neutron repulsion powers the Sun and the cosmos. Dynamic competition between attractive gravitational forces and neutron repulsion sustains life of us and the universe itself.
10. Nuclear dissociation, primarily as neutron emission, makes the Hydrogen that fills interstellar space with a waste product of neutron decay.
Thanks again, tallbloke. – Oliver
Paul,
Although very tricky business, it should be possible to devise an objective index of what you describe with words.
Some of that has been done if I understand you correctly.
This graph shows the 172 avg centres with corresponding solar downturns. The measured J/S & N/U angles displaying the strength of each cycle centre.
Detail of the individual disturbance also available at http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/1
Oliver K. Manuel; read your above comment. I find many of your conclusions above to be similar to those I have arrived at through 55 years of independent self study.
I hope to see more of your work.
P.G. Sharrow: Thank you for your kindness.
Through independent self study you have apparently realized the same truths recognized by many competent scientists.
But an international alliance of politicians, scientists and publishers has effectively sidelined, distorted, or hidden all experimental truths that might falsify their dogma.
That alliance now includes our most prestigious research journals (Nature and Science), institutions (E.g.: University of Bern, University of Chicago, Caltech, Washington University, Harvard and Rice), the National Academy of Sciences and the research agencies whose budgets are reviewed by NAS (NASA, NSF, DOE), and the International Academy of Propaganda and the research agencies controlled by the INAP (CERN, ESA, etc).
Astrophysics and space scientists at the . . .
a.) University of Bern (J. Geiss & P. Eberhardt),
b.) University of Chicago (E. Anders, D. Schramm & R. Clayton), c.) Caltech (G. Wasserburg & W. Fowler),
d.) Washington University (R. Walker & E. Zinner),
d.) Harvard (A.G.W. Cameron) and
e.) Rice University (D. Clayton)
Were probably familiar with the work of Carl Rouse (http://tinyurl.com/y9o99y9) and with our findings (http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09), but . . .
There is little or no mention of the work by Rouse or Manuel in most research papers from the University of Bern, the University of Chicago, Caltech, Washington University, Harvard University and Rice University. – Oliver
PS – Here’s a photograph of me sitting behind Willie Fowler at the 1976 Gregynog Workshop on Isotopic Anomalies:
http://tinyurl.com/y8sekj4
Something which occurred to me this evening is the idea that the perihelion of Mercury problem which vexed pre relativity astronomers might have a different solution. In the ether drift thread we saw that Dayton Miller’s measurement was vindicated by Galaev in 2002. Einstein said if Miller was right, then GR was wrong.
So, what else might account for the discrepancy between the calculated position for Mercury’s perihelion and the observations? Well, the question I’d like to ask is this: what effect would a transfer of angular momentum from the Sun’s barycentric orbit to it’s axial spin have on Mercury?
I read an interesting essay about relativity and Einstein’s prediction of the Mercury Perihelion as a test for GR. It suggested his numbers didn’t add up, and he was himself unhappy with the formulation of the prediction. Maybe the question we should be asking is:
How much energy would have to pass from the solar orbit to the solar spin to cause the observed precession of Mercury’s perihelion if GR isn’t the cause?
When I examined the Michelson-Moorly experiment I was struck by the thought that they did not consider boundary layer effects and gravity welling in their search for aether flow.
Think of the planets and sun moving in an ocean of energy, pushing and pulling one another. That may make it easier to visualize the interconnections.
Yes, this is why Miller’s much more thorough tests at Case Western University and at 6000′ up on Mount Wilson are important. They show that the Aether is entrained by Earth’s surface and blocked out by dense matter.
This is why Michelson and Morley didn’t get much of a result, although it wasn’t an entirely Null result as was claimed later.
This was one of the few times that I have heard of where the failure of the experiment was used by the main stream to prove a concept. However manipulation of the “peer review” process and “the powers that be” to maintain control of scientific research is as old as civilization. This “old way” of doing things is at an end. The “net that covers the world” is the new way that makes knowlage advailable to everyone. All systems of control will be reborn in the new world.
The old world ends and the new begins. We do live in interesting times.
P.G. Sharrow
January 25, 2010 at 8:26 pm
To Tallbloke and all; more ruminations from an old electrican.
Solar rotations
The Sun is a self energized motor/generator that powers the solar system by it’s gravity fields angular momentum and it’s rotating broad band Electro-Motive Force (EMF) output.
Modern accepted science has a hard time recognizing the total of the energy transfer as most of these are deemed too small to be of consequence or not recognized at all.
First, the sun is a very broad band EMF transmitter, as if it were a Tesla power tower that transmitted in all frequencies. We primary recognize the energy output in the light and near light regions. But all of the output is important as loading of the field causes a loading drag on the transmitter. Other bodies embedded in the field suck the field strength down as in an electrical load or short. This loading or short also generates it’s own field that effects the transmitter. They are locked together in a mutual fields.
The Sun also generates a very strong magnetic field that is spinning as if it were an inside out electrical motor. Most of this field is generated internally by circulating metallic materials, as in the earth’s magnetic field. Circulations in the Heliosphere (atmosphere) creates additional fields that push on the internal fields mostly horizontal lines of force and speed up the surface circulation. This causes the equatorial regions to travel faster then the poles as the polar heliosphere is pined or locked to the internal fields vertical lines of force. The metallic bodies in the solar system are also drag or anchor points loading of the rotating solar magnetic field. More push and pull, more energy transfer.
As you can see Gravity is not the only mutual field to be considered in energy transfer.
I hope this helps in visualization of the solar energy system.
It certainly does help, and thanks for your insight.It is my intuition that the ‘back EMF’ produced by the planets might have more of an effect on the Sun than current dogma considers. Your post seems to back that up.
But how do we go about quantifying it? Can we get any clue by looking at Brian Tinsleys work on the Earth’s global electrical circuit and the amount of variation in the Earth’s main dipole field caused by the Sun?
Other ideas?
Re: P.G. Sharrow
This is a nice explanation on EMF that I’ve been seeking for some time…
But, can you, please, extend it a little – how does it happen, that rather slow planets make the Sun spin faster – on the first glance it seems, that they should rather brake it…?
Also – could you verify my statement, that although the Jupiter magnetic moment at the distance Jup-Sun is 100x larger than Earth’s magnetic moment at the distance Earth-Sun, but due to conductivity of IMF the Sun’s magnetic field is 100x larger at Earth’s distance, so the Earth’s magnetic field could be comparable with Jupiter’s at the Sun?
I’ll look also at the other thread, that was assigned to it…?
Semi:
You are correct in assumption that the planets are a load on the sun’s fields. As to whether the planets can push or pull the suns rotation, that is an interesting question. The planets are embedded in the solar system due to their mass / inertia and they have some amount of rotating magnetic field, a rotating magnetic field will try to align with and match the rotation of the fields that it feels. The total amount of energy is quite small, relative to the energy in the angular momentum of the mass /inertia involved.
The sun is a powered motor and it’s surface is being pushed by something that makes it’s equatorial surface over speed it’s core. At present I believe this to be a local phenomena of the sun’s power plant.
The sun’s overall magnetic field is pinned to the core and the sunspot fields follow the surface flow.
Jupiter is sometimes considered a failed or weak brown dwarf as it radiates a great deal more energy then it receives from the sun. Maybe it has a kernel of Dr. Manual’s neutron star? As a rotating magnetic field generator, like the sun, it would have a similar but much weaker effect on its neighbors and the sun, just as the sun effects all in it’s neighborhood. Any field generating planet would have the same effect. The total effect would depend on field strength and distance. We now know that the magnetic lines of force can connect between bodies in space, actually like wiring them together magnetically and transfer very large amounts of energy. As to the relative field strength at the sun of the Earth’s or Jupiter’s fields, that is something for you to calculate. All energy fields, including gravity, act over distance according to the same laws of energy and distance.
Hi Tallbloke
Thanks for making contact with me and telling me about your research and blogg. Wonderful work!
Regarding why astronomers don’t want planetary alignments to affect the Sun, it would be support for astrology. And every astronomer knows (without even investigating it) that astrology is 100% rubbish. But they are wrong, it is only 99% rubbish. 😉
I think it worth putting a couple more references here to the 3 alternatives that you mention and adding a 4th.
1. Tidal forces:
Wood, R. M. & Wood, K. D. Nature 208, 129–131 (1965).
Jean-Pierre Desmoulins Sunspot cycles are they caused by Venus, Earth and Jupiter syzygies? http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jpdesm/sunspots/sun.html
2. COM vs Sun motion
Jose, P. D. Astr. J. 70, 193–200 (1965)
3. Torque action of planets (also applies to Jupiter)
Bigg, E. K. Astr. J. 72, 463–466 (1967)
4. GR effect of planets on solar interior creating convection by yours truly
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/72665-explaining-planetary-alignments-relationship-sunspot-cycle.html
and now a new active thread at Thunderbolts forum
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2930
My personal view is that more than one of these are actually relevant. My proposal, #4, has some strong correlation with the COM proposal, #2, but also some significant differences. It is a true mechanism rather than a free fall that moves and does nothing. It also does differ due to how far the planets are N or S of the solar equator when they align.
Your own work on examining this calculation in the z direction compared to such things as LOD is great. Keep it up!
Ray Tomes
Ray,
thanks for dropping by and for expanding the discussion here. It’s not just the astronomers who don’t like these ideas. Solar physicists are acutely aware of our level of ignorance about the Sun, and the shortcomings of their dynamo theory. This makes them very ‘passive-aggressive’ in defending their corner of science against ‘alternative theories’. I try to get the message across that considering planetary dimensions to their theory might assist in understanding things like the higher speed of Solar equatorial rotation, and how the dynamo is damped and excited, but they don’t like hearing it from the unqualified.
I hadn’t heard of Bigg before I’ll check his paper out. Thanks also for your other references, and I hope others here will take an interest in your current thread.
The “Tallbloke” is right, If you want to discover the truth you must intertain all points of view. Any field of thought may contain the clue needed for your own. Issiac Newton was a student of Astrology and Alchemy.
Astrology is based on 6,000 years of observation of cyclic effects and uses the positions of the observed bodies from the point of view of earth as the clockwork. It’s most important use was to determine weather and planting dates for farmers.
Control of knowlage to control the masses, and dreamt up mythology to cover up ignorance of the true causes. Kind of like modern Climate Science.
This field of thought in astromachanics may well be the start of a new field of science.
I noticed some discussion of longer JS cycles that appear in one of Semi’s graphs.
Some related notes:
1) The shorter cycle:
The harmonic of S nearest J:
29.47303787 / 3 = 9.824345955
The beat with J:
(11.86630899)*(9.824345955) / (11.86630899 – 9.824345955) = 57.0914962
2) The longer cycle:
5J ~= 2S so J/2 ~= S/5
11.86630899 / 2 = 5.933154494
29.47303787 / 5 = 5.894607573
The beat:
(5.933154494)*(5.894607573) / (5.933154494 – 5.894607573) = 907.2999052
Eyeballing & statistical approaches are not the best ways to work out beat envelopes.
3) Cycling of the shorter cycle through the longer cycle:
The harmonic of 907.2999052 nearest 57.0914962:
907.2999052 / 16 = 56.70624407
The beat:
(57.0914962)*(56.70624407) / (57.0914962 – 56.70624407) = 8403.44299
A record length falling at a subharmonic of 8403.44299a would be one way to improve canned stats software estimates of the 907.2999052a period. Using the eyeball method, 3*(8403.44299a) = 25210.32897a would probably be a long enough record to recognize the cycling pattern.
The confusion (that reliably recurs in blog discussions) about the U-N cycle in r & AM can be overcome using an analogous approach.
Interesting figures Paul. Earth’s precession period is currently estimated to be 25,772 years. 25,772/3=8590.667. I have heard that Jupiter and Saturn move closer together and separate again over very long periods, so maybe inertia could cover the discrepancy given the scaling of differences via the calculation. They are currently separating, and this will lengthen Saturn’s orbital period gradually.
The 907year period is in the bracket Semi provided for the cycle of the scalar sum of the solar system’s angular momentum.
There are an infinite number of beat envelopes. The challenge is to isolate the meaningful ones.
Are all of you aware of the paper by Peter Toth,
“Is the Sun a pulsar?”
Nature 270, 159 – 160 (10 November 1977)
doi:10.1038/270159a0]
Paul, that’s true, though the numbers aren’t far off there, and the Jupiter Saturn cycle must be important due to those two planets being the biggest in the system. I think it’s worth investigating further to see if we can reconcile the difference. Thanks for leading the way with your rigorous calculations.
tallbloke, one thing I learned when I was new at beat calculations is that tiny differences in periods make huge differences. Remember the wikipedia Saturn period error (discussed on Vukcevic’s solar cycle thread on your blog)? That sent me on some wild goose chases. Here’s one of them:
Junk – don’t use it for anything.
On the Semi/Kepler thread you may have noticed that I put some rigor into testing sensitivity of the ~41ka cycle (based on different sets of NASA numbers). Lessons learned. There are an infinite number of potential wild goose chasing begging for participants in this game – part of the fun at times, but also a major hazard. We have a responsibility to conduct ourselves publicly in a fashion that will not undermine our important cause. I could show you a very, very, very long list of periods “close” to the number above …but I’ll be exercising restraint until I’ve seen a lot of evidence. Having said all that: We each have a different role to play.
Perceptive comment. I had a reply from Miles Mathis this morning. He is interested in helping us with some gravitational and E/M calcs. I’ll leave the precision cycle timing stuff to you and others and follow this interesting new direction for a while.
Oliver Said:
Are all of you aware of the paper by Peter Toth,
“Is the Sun a pulsar?”
Nature 270, 159 – 160 (10 November 1977)
Oliver, that is extremely interesting. This plugs straight into Ray Tomes’ observation that the outer planets are orbiting at the nodes of a 160 minute light speed wave.
I see a post coming up. Thanks for the tip.
I’ve been following the thunderbolts discussion (not commenting because I don’t generally participate in forums requiring membership).
A note for readers:
What Ray is doing is mathematically equivalent to what I’ve shown above – (proof appears below). Ray is working with frequencies, whereas I have shown the calculations as a function of period. It’s a worthwhile exercise to compare the different sets of calculations to realize just how sensitive beat periods are to minor tweaking.
Recommended:
Always investigate the effect of minor changes to decimal places to get a handle on the sensitivity, keeping in mind that we are often working with average periods, that averages depend on the averaging period chosen, and that osculating elements vary substantially around averages. Also, keep in mind that there are different definitions of the year (which result in different periods). Someone not being careful could spend years of their life producing absolute rubbish – this is no exaggeration.
f = 1 / T
f = frequency
T = period
For A greater than B,
f = 1 / B – 1 / A
so f = (A-B) / (A*B)
and T = 1 / f = (A*B) / (A-B)
Suggested:
Try the calculations I showed above for the periods Wikipedia had posted for J & S last year: 11.8592 & 29.657296 (warning: this value for S is WAY off estimates from other sources).
tallbloke, on the Semi/Kepler thread, I think you may have misunderstood where I was going with the N cycle that I’ve added to an appendix here:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SunspotsJEV.htm
This is evidence of the effect of a single axis on amplitude …and you may see the connection with your sunspot graph after you’ve had more time to deeply consider solar system confounding, lag interpretation hazards, etc. When I said “simply” S & N, I did not mean “trivially”; rather, I meant, “not some complicated beat envelope”. I encourage you to keep looking for shared patterns like the ones you’ve found, as they stimulate discussion and deeper investigation of the layers upon layers upon layers of solar system confounding …such as this …
…which is an example of where people were focused on the sun (black curve), perhaps not realizing that nearly the exact same thing (green curve) was happening right here in the Earth-Moon system (which is not necessarily easy to see without applying some signal processing gymnastics). I’m not really eager to discuss this further since I have an unrelated write-up to do – (and it’s important) – but I wanted to make an effort to clear up what I perceived to have been a misunderstanding that can now be easily overcome (perhaps instantly). If you can see the N cycle in the appendix graph, I think we’re on the same page – let me know…
Hi Paul,
I’m open minded and receptive to ideas about the orientation of the mass distribution of the planets with respect to the galactic centre as well as the reversing motion in the z axis. Like I said, it’s an open field, and at this stage, the more ideas and possibilities we generate, the less likely we are to miss something important. Which axis did you use, x or y? Armed with that info, I can have a think about it while you get your other work done.
Cheers
Rog
Those calculations use x & y, but the amplitude modulation shows simple (not beat) frequencies. I don’t think my message is getting across, but as you can tell, I’m buried in work – apologies.
No worries, it’ll wait. 🙂
A minimal note for the meantime:
The things I’m calling “f(SunEMnAM)” & “f2(SunEMnAM)” in the appendix here …
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SunspotsJEV.htm
…are derived from the curve Semi shows in figures 35-37 here:
Click to access Orbital_Resonance_and_Solar_Cycles.pdf
And the green curve here …
…is derived from the curve Semi shows in figures 32-34 …so folks around here will see the connection with Semi’s figure 48c — I just work with the 2nd derivative of those curves to see the J-N patterns that are masked by J-S in the 0th derivatives …since it’s the J-N stuff that shows up most clearly in EOP (Earth orientation parameters) & terrestrial climate indices.
Intriguing. 🙂
Clean enough to take to academia.
The thing to note is the how the stripes in the 3rd plot line up with the peaks & troughs in the 4th plot.
Note that the pattern changes when the cumulative-PDO crests:
This is consistent with earlier insights.
More details will be forthcoming when results are more organized. For now, in short: This is about connections between SSD (solar system dynamics), EOP (Earth orientation parameters), & climate indices.
More reader-friendly now:
Thanks Paul.
And as we know from what you’ve already calculated, the EMnAM ties up with the Solar motion too…
Nice work! Can we work up a post on this or do you want to ‘save it’ for academia?
Re: Paul Vaugan:
> tallbloke, there’s no getting around the fact that SSBz
> dominant-periodicity is nothing more than J, S, U, & N
There is another thing probably more interesting on the Solar innertial motion, than the outer envelope caused by large planets, and it would be lost if you use smoothing the values:
The most instant changes in Solar movement are due to small planets (like jerks on the otherwise smooth movement), and this is what the Sun “feels” while spinning – immediate changes in acceleration. (There seems (very preliminary) to be some relation with the Sunspot cycle and second derivation of Sun’s movement, more on this later, and probably it is an error again?? (The data are not clear enough and one cannot use smoothing of second derivation, since it usually smooths out to 0?) This could also connect with the effect of PTCs, since at PTC time the “instant pattern” changes a little… Just an idea worth trying…)
[I’m not just “playing with numbers”, but trying to find a physically possible explanation in physically meaningful values…]
————————————————-
Re: Geoff Sharp:
> You will find the zero crossings will not follow
> a 179 year pattern as well. The same planets are involved.
> Basically Jose did not go back far enough.
> Do a simple test with this solar system viewer.
> …
> The last zero crossing was 1990 when S/U/N were together
> with J opposite which is the only combination that works
> for zero crossings. Go back 10 cycles, the 179 year cycle
> will take you back to year 200 which is 65 years away from
> the configuration. The 172 year cycle will take you back
> to year 270 which is 5 years from the configuration (265).
I’m sorry to be a little tiresome with this and it is not related to “solar” topics anyway:
The individual zero-crossings are spaced approx. 179 years apart, but as you see, there are 9 major waves on the 179 year cycle (not counting the PTC degenerations of the curve), and the zero-crossing may happen on 1 or 2 “waves” per cycle. Usually the one zero-crossing emerges and continues in few following 179-year cycles and diminishes, and in the meantime, another “wave” on the cycle takes over and starts to generate zero-crossings, and they partially overlap in few cycles. If you happen to count distances from different “waves” on the cycle, you get different lengths…
There could be a nice visualisation – take the Jose chart back into 1 line (you have it broken on 3 lines), generate few thousand years of data and measure, how the chart repeats – the repetition will be very clearly 179-year, with 172 years from one trough/peak falling in middle of ascend/descend of another wave.
There is a 172-year Uranus/Neptune beat in it. I think, that Paul Vaughan (if he finds a time for this) could tell us, where does the 179-year beat come from?
Those 9 “waves” in the 179-year cycle seem little to resonate with 8x 22-year Hale cycles, so it could also be of a little interest in the “Solar” topic anyway…?
Now I’ve reached to Mr. Ray Tomes page The Cause of the Sunspot Cycle and the explanation of J+N effect (at this blog also seen in Paul Vaughan’s charts) seems now much more probable and “meaningful”, so I appologize to P.V. for previous suspicion and congratulate to Ray Tomes for this explanation…
At a later time I hope to respond to comments by tallbloke & Semi, but since time is pressed at the moment I will limit present comment to indicating that I have found nonstationary (but stable) 11.07 year cycles by applying wavelet methods to AM & r in conjunction with an assumption (for the purpose of developing an index to explore the claims of others) that some single axis plays a modulating role.
Semi,
Your observations on the fluctuating timing within a group of chance in the zero crossings is exactly what occurs in the PTC cycle. This is why it cant follow a strict 179 year pattern. The only constant is the N/U period which has J/S moving quickly and changing the mix each time. That changing of the mix is what gives us the variation in modulation seen over the Holocene.
The reason why there appears to be 179a periodicity where there is really 171a periodicity is simply that both S-N & J-N have subharmonics near 179a:
5*(S-N) = 179.4391146
14*(J-N) = 179.0109822
…but both S-N & J-N are sliding through U-N, so after a number of U-N cycles, this goes “out of whack”.
J-N = 12.78649873
S-N = 35.88782293
U-N = 171.4442259
(using NASA J2000 3000BC-3000AD orbital elements)
The shortest period is J-N.
The next-shortest period is S-N.
The harmonic of S-N nearest J-N is:
(S-N) / 3 = 35.88782293 / 3 = 11.96260764
The beat:
(12.78649873)*(11.96260764) / (12.78649873 – 11.96260764) = 185.655447
This is how long it takes J-N to slide through S-N.
The next step is to figure out how long it takes the remaining synodic beat, U-N, to slide through 185.655447. Note that the harmonic of U-N nearest 185.655447 is simply U-N.
The beat:
(185.655447)*(171.4442259) / (185.655447 – 171.4442259) = 2239.748023
Most are used to thinking of a “2400a” “cycle” (just like many are used to thinking of a “179a” “cycle”). There may superficially appear to be a 2400a cycle because 14*(U-N) = 2400.219162 falls close to 67*(S-N) = 2404.484136 …but, again, the S-N & J-N cycles are sliding through the U-N cycle …and the beat envelope can be determined theoretically (as has been done above).
Bear in mind that one could easily “engineer” a 2400a cycle by gently (that’s all it takes) tweaking the base-periods (J, S, U, & N). Always run a sensitivity analysis – and keep in mind that we are dealing with average periods …and that there are different definitions of “year”.
Zero crossings do not occur every cycle. From -800 to -240 there were NO zero crossings.
I think there are 2 planet synodic periods that occur on regular basics but do not see any other regular pattern. Because the N/U period is by far the largest and is a prerequisite for zero crossings, everything must vary either side of it. This is why the zero crossings and PTC events fluctuate around a 172 year centre.
Ray told me he had the same discussion with Landscheidt.
Paul sums it up nicely.
So if this is all understood, then the power of a zero crossing or PTC event is totally reliant on the J/S position at the time of N/U conjunction.
The zero crossing part is easy to see and can be measured very accurately. But the PTC event is different, the 4 planet configuration linked below is a strong type “A” that coincides with the Holocene’s biggest solar downturns.
Correction:
“Note that the harmonic of U-N nearest 185.655447 is simply U-N.”
should read:
Note that the harmonic of 185.655447 nearest to U-N is simply 185.655447.
Geoff Sharp 2:36 “I think there are 2 planet synodic periods that occur on regular basics but do not see any other regular pattern.”
There are ways to bring out the more complex beat envelopes visually. In the days/months ahead I will try to find time to demonstrate this with very simple graphs. I actually have the sense that I’ll need such graphs when I am trying to communicate my findings to folks who’ve never thought about the things we regularly discuss. Most people don’t have much time for this stuff, so a challenge is to make explanations simple & concise.
Interesting upcoming probe launch:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/05feb_sdo.htm
I found this nice page at orbitsimulator.com which shows the effect of the planets on the solar motion around the barycentre well. Should help people new to the subject get an idea of what we are discussing.
http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/ssbarycenter.html
Thanks, Gray for the link to NASA’s news story:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/05feb_sdo.htm
That is indeed encouraging! Each of you have helped reshape NASA into an agency that can now admit:
“. . . an unorthodox idea has been gaining favor among astronomers. It contradicts old teachings and unsettles thoughtful observers, especially climatologists.
“The sun,” explains Lika Guhathakurta of NASA headquarters in Washington DC, “is a variable star.”
“But it looks so constant…”
What a remarkable transformation!
Again, thanks for helping reform NASA.
With kind regards,
Oliver
“According to a 2008 study by the National Academy of Sciences, a century-class solar storm could cause twenty times more economic damage than Hurricane Katrina.”
This is a key sentence in the article.
If they find a way to do reliable prediction, will they want their enemies to know when they will be (severely) vulnerable to attack? One option is to not expend our time/energy on protracted arguments with people who carry the weight of such heavy responsibilities – a few lines here & there is enough to alert the brighter members of the public that there may be more than meets the eye.
Heh, interesting comment in the light of my recent and protracted argument with Leif about Ching Cheh Hung’s paper on predicting solar flares.
Personally I think the public has a right to know which overarches any military advantage the spooks think they can leverage. They are paying for the research after all. Bunker mentality makes me laugh.
Free the science!
Semi 5:48 “[…] it would be lost if you use smoothing the values […] one cannot use smoothing of second derivation, since it usually smooths out to 0?”
First, a technical note: Derivative (not derivation) is the word you are looking for in English. (Derivation has a different meaning in mathematics in English – so I am pointing this out in case some readers are becoming confused.)
The effect of smoothing (whether on 0th, 2nd, or nth derivative) depends on smoothing-bandwidth in relation to periodicity.
If you vary the bandwidth, you will notice cycles suppressed at subharmonics – and accented at mid-points between successive subharmonics.
Example: Annual cycle (something to which everyone can relate):
Suppressed at 1a, 2a, 3a, … smoothing.
Accented at 0.5a, 1.5a, 2.5a, …
Spectral analysis is based on such fundamentals …but today’s advanced statistics education is deeply bogged down in such a blistering whirlwind pace of endless derivations & proofs that most students lack the time (& perhaps common sense in some cases – although technically proficient) to develop deep intuitive understanding of the fundamentals that motivated the brilliant pioneers of the past. In short: Reinventing the wheel is actually the more efficient way (in my experience, at least) to develop fundamental understanding of core concepts.
One more note:
Differencing and then smoothing is equivalent to smoothing & then differencing — this should help people (ones who aren’t necessarily going to do the variable-bandwidth-smoothing educational-exercises I suggest) see that higher derivatives of functions with a number of periodic components don’t smooth to zero just because differences may look (superficially) scattered-randomly about zero – (the appearance depending on the periods & sampling frequency).
If something isn’t clear, feel welcome ask. I hope your work on physics is progressing efficiently.
tallbloke 12:53 “And as we know from what you’ve already calculated, the EMnAM ties up with the Solar motion too…”
The curves are essentially identical (with minor differences) once one filters out the pattern caused by Earth-Moon’s looping around the sun. I wonder if Landscheidt knew this – I REALLY would like to know if he knew this. I would also like to know if he knew that the 3rd & 4th derivatives of AM & r relate to his ‘finger’ cycles. (He was isolating them from lower derivatives using moving-variance.)
–
tallbloke “Can we work up a post on this […]?”
No spotlights – at this time my involvement needs to remain casual & peripheral – (I’ll let you know if/when that changes).
You’re doing an excellent job as host, allowing the deeper threads to mature at a sensible pace. The talkshop flavor is a welcome alternative to WUWT (which is also excellent, but not for the same reasons).
Good question. Ray Tomes told me he was at the same conferences as Landscheidt on a couple of occasions. I’ll ask. Given the perfect match it does make you wonder about Semi’s idea that the Earth-Moon system might have a subtle resonant effect on old Sol though.
I respect your reserve, and thank you for your kind words. As I found when I ran a pub, you can try to create the right ambiance, but it’s the regulars who really create the character of a venue. Anthony has coped admirably with what became an unexpectedly Herculean task at WUWT, it’s understandable a couple of things slipped under his radar.
The curves are essentially identical (with minor differences) once one filters out the pattern caused by Earth-Moon’s looping around the sun. I wonder if Landscheidt knew this
Paul, what orbit axis point did you use for the EMnAM graph?
Geoff Sharp 11:14 “Paul, what orbit axis point did you use for the EMnAM graph?”
SSB – I need to put that on the graph – thanks for reminding me Geoff.
Clarification:
sunEMnAM” shows J+N periodicity, whereas
ssbEMnAM” shows J-N periodicity.
The connection is via beats with N/2.
I need to review all of my work (2 years’ worth) based on recent insights. I need to rerun earlier analyses comparing the effect of using r, r^2, & AM (and their first 2 derivatives).
Too many things are lining up. Landscheidt was on the right trail, but confounding & lags were dogging him — a few more years and who knows where he would have been if he hadn’t died? The evolution of his work shows he learned from his earlier mistakes at an impressive rate.
Thank goodness he went public even though he probably knew there would be more (& fairly serious) twists & turns on the road of discovery. Without his pioneering work on SOI, PDO, NAO, etc. on the public record, I possibly never would have known where to even start.
–
tallbloke 9:17 “Given the perfect match it does make you wonder about Semi’s idea that the Earth-Moon system might have a subtle resonant effect on old Sol though.”
Can you clarify more specifically what you are suggesting tallbloke?
It’s shame Frau Landscheidt gave all Theodor’s papers to some PHD student from Potsdam university. I wonder if/when they’ll see the light of day again.
The Earth-Moon system orbits the Sun – E-Mn barycentre, which is about 480km from the Sun’s centre if memory serves. The question of how the Earth is affected by getting dragged around interplanetary space along with the Sun’s motion around the SS barycentre is an interesting one. So is the question of whether the Earth’s relative motion WRT to (say) Jupiter has been directly observed.
In the light of your clarification Paul, I’m not suggesting anything at the moment. I’m getting dizzy trying to visualize the various rotations. 🙂
I too get “dizzy trying to visualize the various rotations”, and I deeply appreciate those of you who are able to do so.
Keep up the good work that Landscheidt started!
Many years ago I learned that I am an absolute idiot in space perception. But various rotations do occur and effect Earth’s climate, whether or not I can personally visually perceive them.
NASA’s changed attitude is widespread and shocking in the news release about NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory: The ‘Variable Sun’ Mission.
http://science.nasa.gov/ headlines/y2010/05feb_sdo.htm? list1073366
It includes these comments from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), NASA Headquarters, NASA’s Goddard Spaceflight Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, and the University of Colorado.
1. From NASA Headquarters: “The sun,” explains Lika Guhathakurta of NASA headquarters in Washington DC, “is a variable star.”
2. From NRL: “Understanding solar variability is crucial,” says space scientist Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab in Washington DC. “Our modern way of life depends upon it.”
3. From NAS: “According to a 2008 study by the National Academy of Sciences, a century-class solar storm could cause twenty times more economic damage than Hurricane Katrina.”
4. From the Marshall Space Flight Center: “The depth of the solar minimum in 2008-2009 really took us by surprise,” says sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. “It highlights how far we still have to go to successfully forecast solar activity.”
5. From Boulder, CO: “If human eyes could see EUV wavelengths, no one would doubt that the sun is a variable star,” says Tom Woods of the University of Colorado in Boulder.
6. From NRL: “‘Solar constant’ is an oxymoron,” says Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab. “Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”
7. From NASA’s Goddard Spaceflight Center: “Understanding the inner workings of the solar dynamo has long been a ‘holy grail’ of solar physics,” says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.
Now DOE (Department of Energy) scientists need to admit or deny that N-N repulsion is the energy source that powers the Sun and generates the cycles of solar magnetic activity that are empirically linked with changes in Earth’s climate.
Thank you for encouraging NAS, NASA, the Goddard and Marshall Space Flight Centers, and NRL to re-examine old dogmas.
Now we need to pressure DOE scientists to reconsider their dogma about N-N interactions.
With kind regards,
Oliver
“‘Solar constant’ is an oxymoron,” says Judith Lean
Mind you don’t get beat up by Svalgaard and Frohlich Judith. 😀
Using the SSB as an orbit axis point for the Earth/Moon system for calculating AM is fraught with danger in my opinion, but perhaps might tease out some interesting discussion points.
This method will show consistency with solar movements from the SSB similar to the great counter weight Jupiter, but I am not sure there is anything new to discuss?
Geoff, I’m investigating actual observations of the Earth’s motion about the E-Mn barycentre and it’s very interesting:
I may work up a post on this coupled with Jovian – Barycentric issues to try to shed some light on the uncertainties regarding orbit points.
Oliver,
I’m glad you found the article interesting. The quotes you isolated I agree show a profound shift and perhaps a more flexible consideration of the evidence. Perhaps Tallbloke would consider running a thread specifically on the probe launch and its progress?
Geoff Sharp 2:05 “Using the SSB as an orbit axis point for the Earth/Moon system for calculating AM is fraught with danger […]”
No ‘danger’ – one can choose any reference point whatsoever.
Geoff Sharp 2:05 “This method will show consistency with solar movements from the SSB similar to the great counter weight Jupiter, but I am not sure there is anything new to discuss?”
The point is that you don’t have to look only to solar variability as a source of Earth variations related to solar system dynamics (see Barkin & EOP) …but I’m not saying both aren’t happening – only cautioning of the confounding (& not seeking protracted discussion).
Anecdotally, I’ve found coherence between aa index & Earth’s NAM [northern annular mode, aka AO (Arctic Oscillation) & NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation)], sometimes sticking at QBO-frequency, so there are layers of complexity to work out – i.e. no need for suspicion that I’m on the attack against solar theories ….even though I may throw a stick in that wheel from time to time to stimulate outside-the-box thinking with some hopes for broader recognition that ideas aren’t necessarily competing, but rather complementary.
Geoff, I might have some questions for you about your way of looking at the AM curve – do you have time for that? Following recent insights, I may be within striking distance of quantifying some of the features you have described very well with words.
Gray: Good idea, though I’m sure WUWT will do so anyway. However we might get a more serene discussion here, IYKWIM. Give’s me a chance to brighten the place up with some splashy NASA graphics anyway. Your tax dollars at work. 🙂
Paul: I agree with looking at different factors. It would be interesting to see what other signals in E-MnAM the SSB might be swamping. There should be some J M and V in there somewhere. The magnitude of that would help me with my E-Mn barycentre investigation too.
Paul,
Using the SSB as axis point is fine, but when calculating Earth AM it will show solar characteristics which may confuse. The pattern will look very different when using the Sun as axis point but appreciate you may be looking for something else.
Looking forward to your questions re the AM curve.
Apologies to Geoff, I just found this in the spam folder:
Paul,
Although very tricky business, it should be possible to devise an objective index of what you describe with words.
Some of that has been done if I understand you correctly.
This graph shows the 172 avg centres with corresponding solar downturns. The measured J/S & N/U angles displaying the strength of each cycle centre.
Detail of the individual disturbance also available at http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/1
With those links, no questions. Just one comment: Charvatova published about U-N in the 80s. Fairbridge revised his 178 to 172 in a 1995 article. And no doubt plenty have reinvented the wheel — I did so myself months before finding their articles – and it was dead-easy – we shouldn’t assume wheel-reinvention isn’t commonly occurring, particularly since the UN pattern is so 1+1=2 simple.
Extension of collegiality to include Dr. Charvatova is appropriate. Geoff, I encourage you to correct a related statement in your article. If you require assistance, I volunteer to provide specific references in support of this polite, respectful, & deserved gesture.
A note to readers who may be struggling to follow along: Different investigators are saying the same things in different languages (including different mathematical languages). My observation is that this has caused communication break-downs & misunderstandings when some research participants are not ‘multilingual’.
I hope to post some draft graphs of ~11.1 year cycles derived from AM curves fairly soon (hours to days – should be a breeze – just that competing obligations are in the way…)
Rate of change of sunspot numbers (black), along with the phasing (blue) one would expect if (a) acceleration of angular momentum and (b) lowest-frequency oscillations on some single axis (and nothing else besides a & b) play a role in solar cycle phasing:
It isn’t much of a stretch to imagine something kicking the phase a bit just before & after 1800, just after 1900, and again now.
Paul,
Very happy to correct a statement if I am wrong…please advise.
Do you have a link to the Fairbridge article of 95, sounds interesting.
Sorry for the delay Geoff. After getting this result …
… ideas about amplitude-modulation started flowing. I’m never eager to interrupt a good flow. I’ll dig the links out of the archive when I get a chance.
Regards,
Paul.
I deeply appreciate everyone’s efforts to show how interactions between the sun and the planet produce changes in the Sun’s angular momentum and the pattern of solar cycles, although I will probably not be able to grasp the details of your analysis of the 3-D positions of these interacting bodies.
Many measurements since 1960 provided evidence that the Sun formed on the collapsed core of the supernova that gave birth to the solar system about 5 Gyr ago:
http://www.omatumr.com/Origin.htm
If so then the solar core is a neutron star [Density of ~10^15 g/cm^3; Magnetic field ~10^12 Gauss], perhaps inside an iron-rich superfluid, superconductor:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501441v1
To my surprise I learned in 2001 that Dr. Maria Zuber (MIT, Geophysics) – for reasons unknown to me – independently concluded that the core of the Sun might be a neutron star.
Perhaps she realized that this might explain why Dr. Marcia Neugebauer concluded that the Sun’s magnetic field has such a good memory:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2000/sunmagfield.html
With kind regards,
Oliver
Follow-up:
The last few times I tried to find Geoff’s “Landscheidt Cycles Research” site [ http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/ ], it was unavailable, so I figured it was gone and replaced by Geoff’s newer site, but today when I looked again I found my notes on U-N, Charvatova, & Fairbridge in these threads:
1) “11000 year Solar Record & Angular Momentum”
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/01/21/11000-year-c14-graph-lines-up-perfectly-with-angular-momentum-graph/
2) “200 Year Solar Cycle Prediction”
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/06/04/200-year-solar-cycle-prediction/
(Note: Where I said “2287a” in that thread I should have said “2240a”.)
3) “Neptune and Uranus Control Grand Minima & Solar Modulation?”
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2008/11/06/are-neptune-and-uranus-the-major-players-in-solar-grand-minima/
4) “Ian Wilson’s Theory on the Planetary Influence on Grand Minima”
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2008/12/02/ian-wilsons-theory-on-the-planetary-influence-on-grand-minima/
Here are some of the relevant notes:
=—
In 1985 Charvatova [then known as Jakubcova] & colleagues published this result:
“The period of 178.55 years, given by Jose [3], was not discovered. Instead, we found a period of 171.78 +- 4.77 years, which corresponds to the synodic period of Uranus and Neptune (theoretical value 171.39 years).”
Bucha, V., Jakubcova, I., & Pick, M. (1985). Resonance frequencies in the Sun’s motion. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica 29, 107-111.
—=
=—
Charvátová, I., 1990a The relations between solar motion and solar variability, Bull. Astr. Inst. Czech., 41, 56-59.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990BAICz..41…56C
(Note that the pdf is available – free.)
Charvátová, I., 1988 The solar motion and the variability of solar activity, Adv. Space Res., 8, 7, 147-150.
—=
=—
[…] Charvatova was pointing straight at U-N in 1988 & 1990 – for example figure 3, as well as in the conclusions, in
Click to access nph-iarticle_query
Fairbridge was also leaning towards U-N in 1995 – particularly see his last 4 paragraphs:
Click to access 9501078v1.pdf
—=
Here’s a link to a list of Charvatova’s publications:
http://www.ig.cas.cz/en/structure/departments/geoelectricity/staff/index.php?action=section§ion_title=Publications&pageaction=element_call&id=fafb83a83de5db9e264b53e4424fc254enpersonalPages1
Independent rediscovery of the U-N wheel is not-at-all surprising, since it’s so simple …and as we know U-N isn’t the whole story.
–
On a separate (but related) note:
Amplitude modulation of the ~11.1a waves is getting quite interesting…
tallbloke, you’ll probably find my reply to Geoff in the spam filter.
[Retrieved. Sorry Paul, I was having a Friday night off.]
Paul,
Independent rediscovery of the U-N wheel is not-at-all surprising, since it’s so simple …and as we know U-N isn’t the whole story.
Exactly right, but the literature in the past only hints at the the real power of the big 4. statements from Fairbridge as an example.
“it is the synod of the two outermost giants
(Neptune-Uranus: lap 171.4095 yr) that acts as the primary trigger to a
sporadic ripple effect that propagates through the system.”
Before Carl’s graph I see no understanding of the power of the big 4 when they are in a particular configuration (J/N/U with S opposing), and how that power can vary by the particular angles involved and how that power moves like a wave across thousands of years.
Lots of the pioneers were heading in the right direction, but it took Carl’s graph to tease out the real deal.
Paul,
Carl’s blog has had a couple of outages over the past 6 months. It used to be on the same server as Climateaudit, and has since been moved to a more stable WordPress server.
You must have tried to log on during the infrequent downtime periods.
Glad to see the threads have not vanished Geoff (as I had thought).
–
We should acknowledge that the pioneers were starting from a less advanced position. They positioned us to see further. I don’t see it as “us VS. them”, but rather “us AND them”.
Landscheidt was struggling to convey his growing understanding in easily-understandable terms. A detailed review of his most recent (before his death) work needs to be done by a very careful & patient auditor. This will be VERY time-consuming.
ALL of the pioneers have given us valuable thinking exercises, but the work isn’t done until we have single, non-complex indices that enable mindless wiggle-matching – for example, camel-hump-like features can be captured in indices that spike where they occur and trough where they do not occur — it’s just a matter of working out beat-envelopes.
Paul, Geoff, tallbloke, et al –
I deeply appreciate and want to encourage you in your efforts to work out the details and solve the connection between:
a.) The geologic record of cyclic changes in Earth’s climate,
b.) Periodic reversals in Earth’s magnetic field,
c.) The cyclic movement of the barycenter,
d.) The cyclic nature of solar activity, and
e.) The cyclic nature of planets in orbit.
As tallbloke noted in the introduction, “the solar system is a system in the fullest sense of the word.”
Although I am an absolute idiot in space perception and cannot assist with this project, I am not so naive as to think that these repeating cycles within the tiny region of space occupied by the solar system are independent.
I even posted a couple of purposefully vague comments here:
http://www.physorg.com/news159704651.html
http://www.physorg.com/news164253692.html
Oliver,
I also appreciate your drive to search out the answers to the big questions. We are experiencing a long awaited change in thinking re climate change which I think will flow into an upheaval of the perceived solar understanding. If the grand minimum occurs as it still appears, the world of solar science will be a different place to now.
Perhaps grand minima are simply one solar hemisphere shutting down….the early signs for this are encouraging.
Hello, back again…
Re: Geoff Sharp 2010-02-06 02:36
> Zero crossings do not occur every cycle. From -800 to -240
> there were NO zero crossings.
Do we talk about a same phenomenon?
There was no absolute-zero crossing ever (getting SSB into center of Sun), it’s always just “quite close to zero”. It then depends, where you define the line, which means a “zero crossing” for you… But yes, the “zero-crossings” from -1600 to -550 were really weak. The one at -552 (JD 1519577) was more near than the last one at 1990…
If you just mean the times, when AM(Sun) gets through zero to a negative value (retrograde Sun), then yes, it happens rather rarely…
Re: Paul Vaughan
> Derivative (not derivation) is the word you are looking
> for in English
Thank you. I’m not English and I’ve picked an incorrect translation…
> > the EMnAM ties up with the Solar motion too…”
> The curves are essentially identical (with minor differences)
> once one filters out the pattern caused by Earth-Moon’s
> looping around the sun
This is just because the Earth does not orbit arround SSB, but arround the Sun, which drags it arround the SSB with itself. This is the case with all small near planets, but is not the case with far large planets… (Geoff Sharp argues this, saying that all planets orbit the Sun and not SSB, but it just does not appear so…)
——————————————————-
Re: Oliver K. Manuel 2010-02-12
> If so then the solar core is a neutron star
> [Density of ~10^15 g/cm^3; Magnetic field ~10^12 Gauss]
I’ve read some part of your wonderful work on “Neutron Repulsion Confirmed As Energy Source”.
[ [ It inspired me of a “Neutron-star battery” for interstellar travel – capturing a neutron star and using it’s energy to propell the space-ship… (now it sounds like a science fiction, but after some 1000 years, it may be an only possibility to get enough energy for the way to distant stars or galaxies). Yes, now this is a sci-fi only… But the “battery” could be much smaller, the “neutron star” of a size of a tenis ball could propel a city or a region… It would be a more “clean” energy-source than coal or Uranium? ] ]
What is a magnetic field of pure Neutrons? I thought, that without electric charge it would not be magnetic?
If the magnetic field of the Sun would be “10^12 Gauss”, why don’t we feel it here at our distance? Does it correspond with the 0.1-5 nT field, measured at our distance from the Sun? Or does the field disappear on the way from center to surface layers?
I’m back here rather to dispute the theory of mr. Ray Tomes:
Quote from The Cause of the Sunspot Cycle :
> When Neptune is above, then Jupiter above the equator
> causes a sunspot maximum, and when Neptune is below
> then Jupiter below causes a maximum. This means that
> every 164.8 years there is one extra sunspot cycle than
> the number of times Jupiter goes around the sun
So, the rule “When Neptune is above, then Jupiter above the equator causes a sunspot maximum” just does not work at all. It rather seems the opposite, but not consistently enough to build a theory on it…
What about the Neptune near equator?
How do you actually get the 11-year cycle of Jupiter and Neptune? Subtracting their inclinations (relative to Solar equator) just leads to a 11.86 year wave on top of the 164-year wave of Nuptune. (what other function would best describe your “rule”?)
As they are both prograde, their frequencies probably never subtract, only add. What is a relation, that could subtract Jupiter and Neptune frequencies to get anything below 11.86 years, without using multi-millenia-long cycles?
Hi Semi,
Ray might pick up your question on the thread where he has a current discussion on the theory, though I guess he is busy with other research at this moment. I have a login for that site, so I have reposted your question there, and I’ll let you know if a reply is made.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2930&p=32146#p32146
SEMI; I believe you are correct in the opinion that the sun effects the planets from Its’ center of gravity and that the solar system effects the sun from the barycenter of the units in the system.
P.G.
Hmmm, A single general effect emanating from the single central force with differentiated multiple effects going back the other way. Food for thought.
Threads are pulling together:
I recommend bookmarking the Nasa eclipse-map file to which lgl links – and taking a minute to understand the connection between the maps & the curves:
More comment at another time – (lots of work to do…)
Has anyone read anywhere that the length of the terrestrial day relative to the length of the draconic month is controlled by solar system dynamics (perhaps in a manner this is well-understood, but outside of my past fields of study)? Links to any material claiming such linkage will be appreciated. This could be relevant in explaining ENSO, the de Vries cycle, and the resistance of some academics to results I’ve presented regarding terrestrial polar motion & QBO.
Regards,
Paul.
The SOI match occurs in simple form ONLY during the minimum of a 205 year (celestially controlled) envelope.
GLAAM shows a match later in the century. The PDO shows a nonrandom (but complex) relationship across the whole record. Work is ongoing.
Just to let everyone know, I´m out hiking in Spain with my lady for ten days. Back home at the weekend.
Semi,
I find this discussion a little odd, after you elegantly showed the correlation between solar cycle and Ve/EMB AM variation. This variation clearly is caused by Ju accelerating the inner planets. Why isn’t the simple explanation then that this acceleration is bringing the Sun a little out of free fall because it has to ‘counter’ motions it didn’t cause?
Re: lgl
> …Ve/EMB AM variation. This variation clearly is
> caused by Ju accelerating the inner planets. Why
> isn’t the simple explanation then that this
> acceleration is bringing the Sun a little out of
> free fall because it has to ‘counter’ motions it
> didn’t cause?
Thank you for pointing this out…
There seems to be a correlation between a derivative of Sun’s angular speed (its immediate changes) with the Sunspot cycle – and the most immediate changes (jerks) in Sun’s motion are caused by small planets. The “swing” caused by large planets (usually plotted in Sun’s barycentric charts) makes just a slowly growing/shrinking background below these jerks (and it is quite possible, that some “modes” of the outer “swing” (PTCs) modulate small-planet effects more than other “modes”…)
Some of the peaks on the derivative of angular speed of Sun seem to weakly match peaks on daily sunspot charts, but the verification is deserved…
Otherwise it does not seem much unprobable, that mostly the immediate changes of the Solar angular speed (in the frequency of 80-240 days) could somehow transfer onto the Solar spin, rather than slowly and smoothly changing angular speed (in the frequency of 12-20 years) due to large planets…
Semi, J+N is absolutely clear in the higher derivatives for Earth-Moon. (Apply signal processing techniques to see.)
Notes on Piers Corbyn’s work:
Overview:
I recommend studying the following combo:
Audio: http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/Audio/Tuesday/Piers_Corbyn.mp3
Slides: http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Piers_Corbyn.ppt
More:
Solar Weather Technique (SWT):
Intro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYnLbz8ZoTE
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMQNrP1NhVM
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OKiVTSR0Z8&NR=1
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGosqhZ6gUM
Solar Lunar Amplification Magnetic (SLAM):
Have we overlooked any information in the Titius-Bode Law of planet spacing?
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/bodes_law.htm
I ask because the heterogeneous distribution of isotopes and elements in meteorites and planets convinced us that the Sun ejected all of the material that now orbits it about 5 Gyr ago.
http://www.omatumr.com/Origin.htm
We concluded the above in 1976, and only later realized that the interior of the Sun is mostly iron and a series of reactions induced by neutron repulsion in the core and can explain solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and solar-wind Hydrogen pouring from the solar surface – in the proportions observed.
Hi lgl, I had exactly the same insight ten days ago when I camped the first night in Spain. I was sat stargazing and musing at around 3000′ in the mountains thinking about the solar barycentric motion when I realized more strongly than ever that the Svalgaard ‘Sun always in freefall’ hypothesis is wrong.
I’m wondering if a geometrical consideration of the rate of change of the radius of the solar barycentric orbit might tell us something about solar variation and the faster rotation of the equatorial regions. I don’t mean the radius from the solar centre to the barycentre, but the ‘instantaneous radius’ of the loops the Sun moves in. Perhaps longer term averages might show something. I think Semi’s Idea of short term ‘jerks’ from the inner planets is very promising too.
How to quantify…
Oliver,
I think Miles Mathis’ work on the Bode Titius law is interesting. http://milesmathis.com/bode.html
Perhaps we could discuss it on your solar system thread so we can keep this thread focussed on the planetary dynamical relationship with the solar cycles.
You are welcome here, your posts are read and appreciated, and will be noticed via the ‘recent comments’ listing on the right without you having to put them all in the most active or most recent thread.
Thanks.
Ignoring amplitude & other-timescale trends/oscillations, my interpretation of Piers Corbyn’s “60 year cycle”:
tallbloke & lgl, check out these videos to which anna v linked at WUWT:
Synchronization – 3 Metronomes
key terms/phrases:
“conservation of momentum”, “base excitation”, “coupling through the base”
Synchronisation – 5 Metronomes
Paul, Brilliant!
Maybe the old concept of the universe as a giant clockwork wasn’t so dumb after all…
I’ve dropped a few notes on the relationship of Corbyn’s SLAM with AMO, ACI, PDO, & fish cycles over here:
I’m working on tying all of the following together: terrestrial polar motion, LOD, draconic month, QBO, tropical year, LNC, de Vries cycle, draconic year, HMF flip-flop cycle, Earth-Venus, N-S solar equatorial-rotation asymmetry, Jupiter-Neptune.
Takalo, J.; & Mursula, K. (2002). Annual and solar rotation periodicities in IMF components: Evidence for phase/frequency modulation. Geophysical Research Letters 29(9), 1317 (L014658). doi:10.1029/2002GL014658.
Click to access TakaloAndMursula2002.pdf
abs: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002GeoRL..29i..31T
Takalo, J.; & Mursula, K. (2002). A phase/frequency modulation model for the annual and solar rotation periodicities in IMF. Procedings of 10th European Solar Physics Meeting. ‘Solar Variability: From Core to Outer Frontiers’, Prague, Czech Republic, 9-14 September 2002 (ESA SP-506, December 2002), pp. 63-66.
Click to access nph-iarticle_query
abs: http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/2002ESASP.506…63T
Paul, exciting stuff!
I’m going to work on historical data related to major events like big quakes and volcanos for a while. You seem to be getting the metronomes ticking together nicely!
Good timing tallbloke:
“Quake may have shifted Earth’s axis, shortened day” (Tue. Mar. 2 2010 2:40 PM ET)
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100302/quake_nasa_100302/20100302?hub=TopStoriesV2
“The 8.8-magnitude earthquake that struck Chile on Feb. 27 was so powerful it may have tipped Earth’s axis and shortened the length of a day, scientists at NASA say. […] NASA says there are two reasons the Chile quake may have affected the figure axis more than the 2004 quake.”
It is a glorious day to see immediate MSM penetration on such an important EOP & natural climate variations story.
Thanks, Paul, that’s an interesting link!
One part of the solar system influences another?
That will sound like astrology to our learned solar physicist friend on WUWT!
Given that part of Earth is solid, it’s hardly surprising that some strings of EOP nickel-&-diming are discrete rather than continuous. More here:
“Chilean Quake Likely Shifted Earth’s Axis, NASA Scientist Says”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLAUn4Gy92ss
tallbloke, are you going to set up a “Tips & Notes” thread? &/or start a thread on the recent string of quakes? I just watched an interview in which a geophysicist suggested the Chilean quake could have aftershocks for a year or more due to its magnitude. This is all interesting, but I (like you) appreciate it when this thread remains potently concentrated on particular issues — up to you how to manage – you’re our generous host – & thanks for that.
Paul, I’ll throw open a quakes and volcanoes thread and let the ideas flow from all who are interested.
Be sure to check out Richard Holle’s latest post:
Solar-Lunar association with volcanic activity:
The aa index 32 year signal (mentioned in Piers Corbyn’s NY SWT presentation) appears related to EOP (Earth orientation parameters):
Pr = terrestrial polar motion radius
NO = terrestrial nutation obliquity
32a aa wave isolated with complex Morlet 2pi wavelet
Pr errors included to highlight impact of major changes in measurement quality (poor quality appears to possibly overestimate Pr)
[x] indicates x year moving average
[x]y indicates x year moving average applied y times
‘ indicates rate of change
Paul, I don’t want the moon thread to fall off the page at the moment so we’ll carry on a little further.
I think this is one of lgl’s graphs (?)
Which is interesting to compare with your optical thickness graph, as well as showing the J+S and J-S coincidences with major eruptions.
If -SLAM on your graph indicates that the series is inverted, there seems to be quite a good match to the graph on the moon thread for the ~74 year cycle in the lunar nodes.
By The way Paul, I spotted your response to Anthony on WUWT. Why not do a two paragraph write-up? I have Anthony’s direct email addy, and he has published a couple of items I’ve sent him. It might get a few people thinking, and you could plug this blog too!
Coming into this conversation late, I had some thoughts about this electro motive discussion further back in this thread..Copy pasted below my thoughts….
In regard to the sun as a combination motor / generator, homo polar generator effects are rampant in rotating magnetically conductive bodies that fill the universe. I see the whole solar system as an inter coupled system, as a sub set of the influences affecting the interactions of the planets and their moons, coming into the combined coupling from out side the sun’s heliopause sphere of influence.
In the case of the homo polar fields of the Earth, we only see the faster cyclic shifts in the variation of the felt effects of LOD changes and solar wind strength induced departures from the annual averages.
Mean while the DC component from the background standing field and charge gradient from pole to equator, goes unnoticed… I think there is also a standing DC Galactic field coupling into the heliopause shell of the solar system that is being ignored, as it never varies. This inducted static charge field is felt as gravity, the relationship of inertia to mass when it moves in regard to the static DC fields. In the case of the coupling / driving of the sun of and by the planets it is through the inductive components of the greater galactic fields coupling through the planets in proportion to their magnetically permeable mass that interacts with the induced drives into and out of the whole solar system.
Just as the strength of the permanent magnet fields of a DC motor, determines the torque that the DC motor develops relevant to current flow through the coils. That may be why the magnetic moments of the different planets in regard to the distance, orbital speed, and “daily” rotational rate all combine to form the total rotational energy, that can be shared / shifted / exchanged to conserve total angular momentum in the system, which could explain and define the seen interactive coupling of mutual planet / SSB / sun reciprocal drive exchanges.
As the total energy input has to equal the total energy output, in all interactions they just shift energy from one movement parameter to another,(orbital speed, LOD, static charge), keeping the total system energy balanced.
The key to understanding maybe that the background DC field is defined by / as the local gravity??
Just my thoughts on this item..
Richard Holle
P.G. Sharrow
January 25, 2010 at 8:26 pm
To Tallbloke and all; more ruminations from an old electrican.
Solar rotations
The Sun is a self energized motor/generator that powers the solar system by it’s gravity fields angular momentum and it’s rotating broad band Electro-Motive Force (EMF) output.
Modern accepted science has a hard time recognizing the total of the energy transfer as most of these are deemed too small to be of consequence or not recognized at all.
First, the sun is a very broad band EMF transmitter, as if it were a Tesla power tower that transmitted in all frequencies. We primary recognize the energy output in the light and near light regions. But all of the output is important as loading of the field causes a loading drag on the transmitter. Other bodies embedded in the field suck the field strength down as in an electrical load or short. This loading or short also generates it’s own field that effects the transmitter. They are locked together in a mutual fields.
Re: P.G. Sharrow
This is a nice explanation on EMF that I’ve been seeking for some time…
But, can you, please, extend it a little – how does it happen, that rather slow planets make the Sun spin faster – on the first glance it seems, that they should rather brake it…?
Also – could you verify my statement, that although the Jupiter magnetic moment at the distance Jup-Sun is 100x larger than Earth’s magnetic moment at the distance Earth-Sun, but due to conductivity of IMF the Sun’s magnetic field is 100x larger at Earth’s distance, so the Earth’s magnetic field could be comparable with Jupiter’s at the Sun?
I’ll look also at the other thread, that was assigned to it…?
Semi:
You are correct in assumption that the planets are a load on the sun’s fields. As to whether the planets can push or pull the suns rotation, that is an interesting question. The planets are embedded in the solar system due to their mass / inertia and they have some amount of rotating magnetic field, a rotating magnetic field will try to align with and match the rotation of the fields that it feels. The total amount of energy is quite small, relative to the energy in the angular momentum of the mass /inertia involved.
The sun is a powered motor and it’s surface is being pushed by something that makes it’s equatorial surface over speed it’s core. At present I believe this to be a local phenomena of the sun’s power plant.
The sun’s overall magnetic field is pinned to the core and the sunspot fields follow the surface flow.
Vaughan, P.L. (2010). Volcanic Activity, the Sun, the Moon, & the Stratosphere.
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm
I’m now taking a look at other indices of volcanic activity. We need to keep in mind that SAOT is about THE STRATOSPHERE as well as about volcanoes. (Not all volcanic eruptions impact the stratosphere.)
tallbloke wrote: “If -SLAM on your graph indicates that the series is inverted, there seems to be quite a good match to the graph on the moon thread for the ~74 year cycle in the lunar nodes.”
Keep in mind that LNC is built in to SLAM. It is one of the 2 major components – the other being SCL (solar cycle length). The “60 year cycle” has a nonstationary period, so a fixed 74 is out …although the cycle does get that long at times – but nevermind stationary cycles that require phase reversals when MUCH simpler alternatives are available – like SLAM. Busy week – if/when things settle down, I’ll try to make derivation of the SLAM curve simple. I’m very keen to explore & learn about what the general public is not understanding about what Corbyn is doing.
Corbyn’s SLAM (Solar Lunar Amplification Magnetic) process explains hadSST (Hadley Sea Surface Temperature):
Richard Holle; the following is a piece I wrote to gain understanding of just what Gravity might be.
This is a continuation of my study and thoughts on aether, mass/inertia and gravity.
“More gravity really sucks.”
Gravity is a form of energy.
All energy moves from high concentration towards low concentration.
All matter produces gravitational attraction.
Gravity obeys all the laws of energy except it appears to move in the wrong direction or does it.
The movement of electricity appears to move from high charge to low charge but it actually moves in a curious manner. The charge units fall into low charge spaces in a cascade from low charge toward high. A lightning strike starts at the ground and the charge units cascade into the lowered charge areas and create a conductive plasma to continue the strike as the higher charged regions unload into the drained areas. The movement in a conductor is in the same manner. In solid state electronics an area is doped to have “holes,” positive, low charge areas next to “filled,”negative, high charge areas so a small charge change can cause charge units to fall into the holes and start current flow.
A visual representation is a pile of sand at angle of repose. If some is removed from the base the sand will cascade to fill the hole from the bottom toward the top of the pile.
In an Aether universe the flow of all energy including gravity flows in the correct manner. In cascade from low charge toward high charge. The aether is in high charge (negative) condition and matter is in low charge (positive) condition. Over 200 years of experiments have shown that the charge gradient is about 300 volts per meter elevation increase in a dry atmosphere with no clouds. Behavior of light in the aether indicate a charge density equal to an atmosphere compressed to 10,000 psi.
. Do not confuse the movement of energy from high concentration towards low with the cascade of energy in the opposite direction. In gravity we see and feel the effects of the cascade towards matter but the energy travels in the other direction.
P.G.
P.G. Sharrow
Gravity seems to be the attractive force that opposes neutron repulsion to maintain our dynamic cosmos.
The creation of neutrons is the key to this part of the proposition. Under standard conditions the neutron has a short life. It changes into a hydrogen atom and loses a small amount of mass/inertia.
Under high density conditions a hydrogen atom must collapse to a neutron and gain mass/inertia. Mass/inertia is an indicator of potential energy. The neutron has a high charge skin or shell next to the low charge (positive) proton. The net charge appears to be neutral, but to another proton or neutron the skin or shell is negative.
How is the mass/inertia change stored? Two ways come to mind. Angular momentum (AM) changes in the core spin of the proton, as the shell shrinks under local charge pressure the core proton spins up and mass/inertia increases. Or, net charge, as seen by the aether increases, causing the aether to stronger resistance to change in motion.
Em m m m………………… or maybe all of the above.
P.G.
P.G. –
I do not know how, but nuclear reactions convince me that nuclear rest mass (m) is stored energy (E),
E = km
where k is the constant commonly written as c^2.
In fission and in n-decay, ~0.1% of the nuclear rest mass is released as energy.
In fusion, ~0.7% of the nuclear rest mass is released as energy.
In n-emission from the Sun’s core, ~1.2% of the nuclear rest mass is released as fusion.
The Sun and cosmos seem to be powered by dynamic competition between:
a.) Gravitational forces of attraction, and
b.) Repulsive forces between neutrons.
If the Big Bang happened, it made massive neutron star(s) that fragmented away to produce galaxies and evaporate away by neutron emission to fill the cosmos with the neutron-decay product, Hydrogen.
Nuclear matter is mostly dissociating now:
Neutron star =(n-emission)=> n =(n-decay)=> H
When neutron stars are gone, there will no repulsive force to counter the attractive forces of gravity, and the cosmos may collapse:
H => He => C => . . . Fe =(implosion)=> neutron star
Oliver, I have a hard time accepting ‘The Big Bang” and a one way universe. A constant creation and decay is more to my taste. Must be my lack of proper education :-q
I’m only 63 so maybe there is still hope of me aquiring wisdom. At least on this site we can agree to disagree.:-)
Comparing this …
… with Ian Wilson’s work …
… there appears to be a lunar apse effect.
Paul,
“there appears to be a lunar apse effect.”
Totally agree, but the lunar apse cycle I have heard of is 8.85 years.
“The lunar apse, rotating clockwise in the plane of the Moon’s orbit, moves 360° in 8.849
yr (the lunar-apse cycle).”
Click to access Sanders_lunar_ms.pdf
and it correlates very well with major vulcanic eruptions: http://virakkraft.com/moon-volcano-temp.png
But what is the apse curve in your diagram?
oops! silly me, your apse is 8.85/2, sorry.
So then perhaps you have found why the pattern of eruptions around 1900 and 1980 looks so alike.
Perhaps the Gleissberg cycle.
Even with careful visual inspection, I am left with the impression that the periods we see in those curves are slightly more than 8.85/2 & LNC/2. I’ve written to Ian Wilson for clarification about the indices which he labeled as “apse” & “node”, sharing some notes on my most recent thoughts on Chandler wobble & QBO timing (which differ slightly from those which Wilson presented in a conference video last year – I’ll see if I can dig out the link…) Btw I’m now considering Chandler/QBO periods that are lunar-based, showing 205 & 2500 year cycles with solar-system-based Chandler/QBO periods. I’ve not yet presented the results anywhere – (way too many things to do …& too little time & funding).
2 years ago I found multivariate patterns in local climate data suggesting the following harmonic spectrum (in years): 3.2, 6.4, 12.8, 25.6, 51.2, along with 6.4 year beats with the terrestrial year: 1.185 years = 433 days (Chandler wobble), 2.37 years = 28.4 months (QBO = Quasi-Biennial Oscillation).
Studying solar system dynamics alerted me to the existence of such spectra in: Jupiter-Neptune relations, Earth-Venus relations, & higher derivatives of solar system barycentric motion.
Cautionary Note for solar system barycentre enthusiasts:
The same spectrum arises in Earth-Sun-Moon relations.
Based on draconic month harmonics & the nearest Gregorian (used for purposes of illustration) year harmonics:
(13.60611)*(13.5275) / (13.60611 – 13.5275) = 2341.389811 days = 6.410507569 years
(28.09557692)*(27.21222) / (28.09557692 – 27.21222) = 865.4972869 days = 2.369651086 years = 28.43581303 months
2.369651086 / 2 = 1.184825543 years = 432.7486434 days
—
I have largely shifted contributions to another of tallbloke’s threads, since my focus has become somewhat OT in this thread:
Question:
“What is Dr. Nicola Scafetta doing to get his “60 year cycle”?”
Answer:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/V_Sun_SSB_60a.htm
Tallbloke; read your discussions with Leif over on WUWT at first I thought you were throwing petrol on the fire, but after a while it just turned into a nice blaze. Glad I stayed for 330 comments. That part about JPL “as a point of fact” that they claim the sun feels no acceleration in its’ planetary caused dance because it is in free fall is a bunch of crap. The jerking around of that many gigatons has got to hurt. Maybe someone is just too lazy to do the math.
pg
P.G., see the works of Russian scientist Yu.V. Barkin. His work is not on the sun, but you’ll see that abandoning simplifying assumptions (homogeneity, uniformity, simplified elasticity, sphericity, etc.) becomes quite burdensome after so little as the first steps. It’s not reasonable for us to expect normal scientists to be able to do what they cannot do. There’s no benefit in looking to the wrong people. The most strategic first step for some clear-thinking pioneer will probably involve Earth’s LOD, higher derivatives (jerks) of inner solar system motion relative to the outer solar system, & differential forces (due to body heterogeneity). I envision someone who has sufficient natural ability to handle with grace & harmony not only the conceptualization, but also the politics & communication (particularly teaching).
Upthread – or maybe it was in our earlier thread [ https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/meet-the-new-kepler-p-a-semi/ ] – I was asking about / looking for a biennial terrestrial signal.
Once again, lgl has conveyed very useful insight:
Baldwin, M.P.; & Dunkerton, T.J. (1998). Biennial, quasi-biennial, and decadal oscillations of potential vorticity in the northern hemisphere. Journal of Geophysical Research 103(D4), 3919-3928.
Click to access Baldwin_Dunkerton_JGR1998.pdf
Thank you lgl.
Paul: I envision someone who has sufficient natural ability to handle with grace & harmony not only the conceptualization, but also the politics & communication
Yes. I lost it with Leif the other day. Regrettable really. I’ve decided a bit of gardening time is necessary, so I’m scarce at the moment. Still thinking and conceptualizing though…
Hang in there Tallbloke.
I hang out in the lurker’s gallery. Though not able to follow all the science here I enjoy reading this site and I welcome your skirmishes with Leif who lacks grace and harmony.
BTW have just finished ‘The Chilling Stars’. Some time could someone provide a progress report on Cern’s CLOUD experiment?
Thanks for the support. The gardening time comment wasn’t just a euphemism. I am actually very busy preparing the ground and planting my small vegetable plots at the moment. With the state of my back, it leaves me pretty tired, and so I haven’t been very active on the net late at night recently.
Try Googling Jasper Kirby and the CLOUD experiment for the latest. I have a copy of ‘The Chilling Stars, and I must fnd time to read it.
Thank you for the suggestion Tallbloke. When I first visited your site I read about your accident. Ouch! Enjoy the planting season in the Spring Sun. As a fulltime carer I know what it is like to have occasions when one is less than perfect.
There’s to be a live webcast of the attempt to collide protons in the LHC on 30 March.
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/lhc-first-physics/
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/
There are some pictures from CERN on the first beam run experiment in Dec last year. It sort of looks like the central heating set up under my house. Interesting to compare the pictures of the CERN setup with the DNSC basement picture in ‘The Chilling Stars’.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1248426/
Thanks for the tip. We’d better have a party before the Earth gets sucked into it’s own black hole. 😉
No need to worry about the LHC black-hole yet, it’s only running at 3.5TeV per beam.
Time to worry will be late 2012 when it’s cranked up to 7TeV per beam to give a glorious 14TeV total. Unless of course they hit unpredictable snags along the way…;-)
Hope the gardening is going well your end TB, too cold and wet to plant anything here in ‘Sunny Sussex’ – not even had the first daffs put yet, which is the latest they’ve been since 1979!
Hi Tenuc,
Not been too bad here in sunny Leeds. Daffs are threatening to show their faces any day. I have the onion sets in, and the potato chits showing bud.
Greetings from sunny Northern California, It’s raining, looks like Richard Holle is closer to correct then Accuweather during this week.
Here at 2000ft the Daffies are tired and the Tulips are starting to pop. Gardening is a little behind but the vine yard pruning and trellising is done, just in time too.
The great collider at CERN could be a disaster waiting to happen. Not from a black hole or other such rubbish, but a cascade failure in the super magnet system. The proton beams, at full power,are ONLY each equal in energy to an American super carrier at flank speed. The magnet system stores many times that in electromagnetic energy to power, confine and control the beams. At full power a failure could be as spectacular as a “James Bond” movie finale. At night you might be able to see it from England.
A new paper on solar planetary theory has been released today. Perhaps not that new but I have consolidated my thoughts and put them into one scientific document that hopefully will aid in a better understanding.
The aim is to have this now work in progress paper published, comments are invited.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/172
Well,the LHC event happened and we are all still here. Watching the webcast was a big wow factor for me but then even ice droplet halos around the moon on cold frosty nights are wow events.
In the press conference D-G Rolf Heuer made some strong comments in reference to a reporter’s question on competition between the rival detectors ATLAS and CMS. It was along the lines of ‘crosscheck each other and expose your work’. Is there some history behind this comment?
The video of the Press conference is not yet available on the CERN site, –
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/collection/Videos
On the CERN CLOUD experiment and Jaspar Kirkby, it seems there may be some results from the first beam data with the full CLOUD experiment later this year.
It’s great that it worked OK this time and it will be interesting to see what they discover.
I’m always amazed that they can get so much information by smashing atoms. It must be like trying to work out how a car works from the bits left by a 200mph head-on collision!
New result on volcanoes at solar timescale (SAOT-Mn11a aqua curve):
Details added here:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm
Paul, truly fascinating. With all the reports of auroral lights appearing at the same time as Earthquakes, it’s clear that big electrical things are happening up in the sky (and under the ground) at these moments of cataclysm.
Along with the aligning celestial phenomena you are uncovering with your stats work, the case for there being related electromagnetic forces at work seems to be getting stronger.
I salute your diligence, insight and tenacity.
Paul Vaughan; That “SAOT-Mn11a aqua curve” appears to hit the timing “nail” on the head. Every time I look at the SAOT graph I see two bookends of adjoining stacks and not bookends of one stack, strange. Must be brain damaged.:-p
EMF (Electro Motive Force) effects on matter is the key to understanding everything. Timing is the key to unlocking cause and effect connections between everything.
To think those guys at CERN think that they are the leading edge of thought and research into the workings of the universe.
Accounts of earthquakes tell of the ground ‘going into a wave like undulating’. On a much smaller scale, I once experienced this myself as I crossed a boggy moorland. The water under the biomass I was walking on went into an undulating wave spasm as a huge military bomber (a vulcan) flew overhead at zero feet.
Does this kind of resonance have something to do with very low frequency soundwaves? Is this analogous to the waveform produced by electrical discharges? Is the ionization of the air the thing that causes animals to react to impending earthquakes?
The personal local effects of an earthquake depends on your point of view local conditions. I’ve experienced earthquakes in Alaska, California and the Philipines on soft fill ground, bedrock and water. Sometimes it is like a bomb blast, followed by a dieing rumble. sometimes it is like a freight train rumbling by a cheap built building. Judging by animal reactions to stimuli I would say that the EMF effects make them alert and the crackling of the tiny prequake swarms make them want to hide. I have many times watched as the animals try to hide when distance firecrackers or gunshots rattle out. It must be the sound as they try to hide in the ground or a hollow. Our house dog hides in the cast iron bathtub, the sheep dog hides againist the stone wall. Most people don’t notice small quakes because they are not paying attention not because they can’t sense them.
Lunar Harmonic Spectrum (in years):
(should look familiar to planetary theory enthusiasts)
Comparison of (volcanic) SAOT, DVI, VEI, & MSI:
details:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm
(at least) 2 more layers of tweaking to go…
In regards to earth tides and the timing of the starting of the current Icelandic eruption. The surface cracked open and the lava fountain started on the 21st March. Synod conjunction with Saturn was on the 22nd Lunar declination Max north culmination was on the 22nd as well.
If any of you has ever made curved metal parts on an English Wheel out of flat plate, motorcycle fenders, gas tanks, or to spin make bowls, cones, vases, by gradually deforming the metal as the compressive force squeezes the material into shape. Then you have first hand experience as to how the earth tide deforms the crust of the Earth.
I think of it as similar to when you get a nasty cut across one of your knuckles in line with the creases where the skin flexes, it heals and forms a soft scab, when you bend your finger it cracks open then reforms the scab every time you forget to not bend your finger, soon the acclimation of piled on new scab won’t let you fully straighten your finger, with out overcoming the compressive forces it’s growth has generated.
The same thing happens at ocean ridges, as the earth tide passes over a point on the ridge that can crack open it does and lava seeps out to cool and fill the gap, the declinational component spreads the gap widening process from equator to pole affecting the whole ocean ridge over time. Because the gaps occur with out compressive pressure and result in extra compressive once cooled it provides a constant increase in push apart forces at ocean ridges not discussed in the literature.
Outer planet Synod conjunctions are just two week long surges in electromagnet driving forces that add to the process, and might be enough sometimes to be the trip point to trigger a pending quake, as the ramp up the force starts the earth quake trips when able aftershocks occur for the rest of the two week cycle, and pulses in after shock activity occur in phase with the earth tides for a while after.
This August the Earth has a Synod conjunction with Neptune on the August 20th, Venus with Neptune on September 16th, Earth with both Jupiter and Uranus on the September 21st, then Jupiter and Uranus with each other on the24th September, Venus with Jupiter on the 6th of October and then Earth with Venus on the 29th of October.
I expect many things to be making the news at this time, record hurricane activity globally, quakes lots of places, and information about the interactions of these systems will be available for us to look at.
It might be worthwhile to use the attention it gets to be ready with predictions that prove out, as well as statements as to how the interactive systems really work.
I am downloading data sets for past hurricane production patterns and global quakes of 4+ mag to try to have processed by then, if not before to use as a basis for forecasting.
Link to someone who I have had on line conversations about these questions for several years now, I think you will find his site interesting.
http://www.geo-seismic-labs.org/GSL/gsl_live.htm
My philosophy, quite simply stated is:
The Plate Boundary including the western edge of the
ECSZ is the interface for the transmission of Infrasonic, or AE.
Secondary faultsare the handshake lines, which handle the nucleation of the stress. The data lines are the harmonics, which indicate the severity and the approximate lattitude of the location by having a different amplitude and frequency for each of the specific harmonics in the infrasound spectrum.I monitor and record these frequencies, and analyze the results, which allows me to publish a specific forecast of the current regional lithospheric stress level. It’s not magic, just good old fashioned hard work
while conducting an analysis. I believe these infrasonic signals are the same ones, which enable many pets, wild animals, and humans to sense an increase in the level of stress before an earthquake happens.
Also, I utilize the Spring Tides, Lunar Phases and Solar Activity level in my forecasts.
-Frank Condon
Independent Earthquake Precursor Research Consultant
One thing I want to clarify is that I have not investigated earthquakes yet. I make this clarification because in verbal, e-mail, & blog communications about my recent work, I have noticed that people with whom I am communicating are generally inclined towards conflating volcanic & seismic activity. Also, there are a lot of things affecting SAOT besides volcanoes (hydrologic cycle, circulation, etc.). I will also clarify that I am considering the possibility (with encouraging preliminary results) that buried deep in geomagnetic field patterns is a tidal signal – (i.e. I am not contemplating a major role for “magnetic” forces).
New material (towards physical interpretation) added in an “Appendix”:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm
New page on “60 year” cycles:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/60yearCycles.htm
Southern Ocean 60°S – 90°S sea surface temperature (SST) appears related to SAOT:
20 year smoothing:
1 year smoothing:
Excellent work Paul. Perhaps you could help with this conundrum?
Baffled Scientists Say Less Sunlight Reaching Earth (2006)
“…After dropping for about 15 years, the amount of sunlight Earth reflects back into space, called albedo, has increased since 2000, a new study concludes.
That means less energy is reaching the surface. Yet global temperatures have not cooled during the period…”
See Yu.V. Barkin. Spatiotemporal heterogeneity – and effect on spatiotemporal integration at variable bandwidth – across Earth’s shells cannot be ignored.
I am noting fairly precise parallels with Southern Ocean, EOP (Earth orientation parameter), & solar system dynamics patterns.
Remember this? http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/TPM_SSD_LNC_3.png [TPM = terrestrial polar motion; SSD = solar system dynamics; LNC = lunar nodal cycle]
Its envelope relates to the SAOT envelope and furthermore it points precisely to exceptions to LAC&LNC generalizations.
Functions of Northern Annular Mode (NAM), Arctic Oscillation (AO), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Antarctic Oscillation (AAO), Southern Annular Mode (SAM), & Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) show related patterns.
Speculation:
I am beginning to consider the possibility that lunisolar tidal forces are (through multiple channels) driving a global signal that is subject to solar system induced north-south oscillations discussed by Russian scientist Yu.V. Barkin ….which affect global-scale spatial-integrations and thus global-scale climate summaries, particularly due to north-south terrestrial asymmetry, notably a seasonally-“continental” (due to freezing) northern polar ocean ringed mainly by land and a southern polar island-continent ringed by an ocean with (a) circumpolar currents & high winds, (b) direct connections to all major ocean basins, and (c) quasi-periodic spatiotemporal features that remain insufficiently-understood [“spinning hub” perhaps].
Here’s an interesting link regarding the formation of Kimberlite pipes, which could perhaps give a hint about what triggers earthquakes and volcanoes?
http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C00F2616F39D0B2B!964.entry
Sorry, WordPress has mangled the URL, please cut and paste into your browser address bar (hope this works)
LinkText Here
The following appear related to SAOT:
1) Southern Ocean SST.
2) Southeast Pacific SST.
3) North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).
4) geomagnetic field.
New graphs added:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm
Adding a solar system variable to the mix:
Worth including in communications with academics? (perhaps not on the “official” record – something to think about — one needs to secure new sources of funding…)
Geoff Sharp March 30, 2010 at 10:59 am
“A new paper on solar planetary theory has been released today. Perhaps not that new but I have consolidated my thoughts and put them into one scientific document that hopefully will aid in a better understanding.
The aim is to have this now work in progress paper published, comments are invited.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/172 “
Geoff, I clicked on the PDF link and got the following error message from Adobe Reader: “The file is damaged and could not be repaired.”
Thanks Paul, looks like the file was corrupted….should be good now.
Update:
where:
1) |aa’| = time-integrated magnitude of rate of change of reciprocally powered geomagnetic aa index
2) Lunar90a indicates modulation by the 90 year envelope of LAC&LNC.
Geoff wrote: “looks like the file was corrupted….should be good now.”
different problem now – crashed my browser – had to reboot the computer – (not my area of expertise, so I can’t diagnose).
–
Research update:
This graph is very strongly suggestive of multivariate coupling, leaving the impression of a strong lunisolar modulation of signals of solar origin.
Technical Note: The index f(|aa’|,L90a) has been designed to highlight noncentral values of |aa’|. Spikes in f(|aa’|,L90) indicate that |aa’| was either very active or very calm.
I am within striking distance of cracking the code of ENSO.
Multivariate coupling involving ENSO (El Nino / Southern Oscillation), as represented by SOI (Southern Oscillation Index) [detrended & repeat-1-year-smoothed] in the following:
Supplementary:
Cumulative Sum of Climate Indices:
PDO = Pacific Decadal Oscillation
AMO = Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
wNAO = winter (DJFM) North Atlantic Oscillation
ALPI = Aleutian Low Pressure Index
GLAAM = Global Atmospheric Angular Momentum
NPI = North Pacific Index
NO = Nutation Obliquity (not cumulative sum)
LOD = Length of Day (not cumulative sum)
|aa’| = time-integrated magnitude of rate of change of reciprocally powered geomagnetic aa index (not cumulative sum)
But is the lunar motion the cause and not just another effect? http://virakkraft.com/Ju-Ea-Ve-hadcrut.png
Optical extinction appears partially determined by how el ninos fall around L90 …
It may eventually be possible to explain some of the differences between geomagnetic aa index and sunspot numbers using ENSO, volcanic indices, & the lunisolar harmonic spectrum …
lgl wrote: “But is the lunar motion the cause and not just another effect?”
Surely no one will deny that the solar system plays a role in defining the relationship of Earth with Moon. Whether one chooses to look 1 or 2 or 3 … layers up the confounded chain is, perhaps, a matter of one’s preference.
Certainly there will be NO mainstream funding for proposals mentioning planets. This I can tell you for sure.
Tides, on the other hand, do not cause administrators to crush one’s fingers while eagerly pushing perceived nutjobs out the door before it’s closed. One has to survive real forces in the real world, including economic ones.
The discussion about causation chains is one for physicists. In the meantime, if people find it brings harmony to their world to translate (in their mind) between communication frames by recognizing the confounding, who is to stop them?
Personally, I like the moon.
Note on Confounding:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/Confounding.htm
I recommend having a look at the table.
IVI = Ice-core Volcanic Index & decadal ENSO
More phase-concordance:
This hints of insights into the role of north-south terrestrial asymmetry in the 20th century climate record. 90, 60, 30, & 20 year harmonics of the lunisolar harmonic spectrum may not be manifest in a spatially uniform fashion. (See the works of Russian scientist Yu.V. Barkin.)
—
Also, some of you may want to inspect this:
Svalgaard, L. (2010). Updating the Historical Sunspot Record.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4666v1
On 19 Apr Paul Vaughan wrote
“In the meantime, if people find it brings harmony to their world to translate (in their mind) between communication frames by recognizing the confounding, who is to stop them?”
🙂
Geoff Sharp has produced an excellent summary document covering his Angular Momentum theory here:
Click to access sharp2010_a.pdf
I think this points to an understanding of variable differential solar equatorial rotation speed as being key to understanding the variability of sunspot production.
A very interesting theory.
A very small typo suggestion: “it’s” always means “it is”. If you want to say that something belongs to “it”, the word is spelled “its” with no apostrophe. E.g. “warming them with its radiation” and “how it has its affect on matter”. It is the same with other pronouns: his, hers, theirs, yours, ours.
http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaPossessives.htm
TA; In the old days, when I learned such things, “its” was plural and “its’ ” was possessive and “it’s ” was the contraction of “it is”, although in most cases any dumb reader can generally understand the meaning in context without the fancy punctuation.:-q pg
@Geoff Sharp says:
January 18, 2010 at 9:19 am
“Its not purely about U/N conjunction, Landscheidt got this bit wrong also when he predicted a grand minimum for 1990.”
That U/N conjunction is the very reason there was not a repeat of the very cold conditions 179yrs earlier centered around 1814.
Hi Tallbloke, Oliver and the other astronomically interested skeptics:
Apart from the Sun’s movement, there is a seemingly Sun output increasing/decreasing
effect, which you all have not mentioned and which is tremendously important in producing
RF (radiative forcing):
This is Earth’s orbital forcing…. set to Nil by the IPCC on a millenium’s scale, which is the
greatest Warmists lie to deprive the orbit of its huge effect on the climate:
The orbital forcing results from the true spiral trajectory around its mean progressive
path….. and neither the IPCC nor NASA JPL give figures for this spiralling (or ligating
advancing shape)…. in reality, the planet Earth does a 3-D-flight, which cannot be
with a pencil be drawn on a paper sheet……
……. the spiral shape of the trajectory provides the answer for climate change:
Any spiral has a diameter…..as well as Earth’s planetary advance spiral…..now, depending
on the spiral diameter, large or small, the distance to the Sun changes…..
…daily diameters of the orbit spiral vary….they have to be calculated…..the simple
Warmist answer always is: “We find nothing about the spiral diameter, the JPL Horizons
doesn’t give us a clue…therefore: What are you talking about….?
But this view is just a cover- up, in order to “steal” RF from the orbit and put it into
the pockets of AGW/CO2…..
Cheers
JS