Roy Martin: amazing new Venus Earth Jupiter – Solar cycle analysis

Posted: August 11, 2010 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

This is really exciting. Roy Martin followed up on Ching Cheh Hung’s analysis of planetary alignments and their apparent relations with Solar cycles and improved the correlation in a big way. By building a new database of days on which alignments between the planets took place, and tweaking a few parameters, he has come up with this stunning result:

Roy Martin: Venus Earth Jupiter - solar cycles

Roy Martin: Venus Earth Jupiter alignments vs Solar cycles

Roy is too involved with other matters to join discussion at present, but I’m putting this post up for open review so we can work out some pertinent questions for Roy when he gets the chance to call by.

My first observations are that the way Roy’s analysis shows the planetary alignments relating to small changes such as secondary peaks on the downslope of the solar cycles put the link between the production of sunspots and the motion of the planets beyond doubt.The ‘moving out of phase’ at the modern end of this graph last happened around the 1780’s, followed a couple of cycles later by a big drop in solar activity and the low cycles of the Dalton Minimum. This can be clearly seen in Jean Pierre Desmoulin’s graph. Roy’s speculative curve for Solar cycle 24 may be overestimated taking this into account.

What the mechanism is; tidal, electromagnetic, or direct gravitation/angular momentum, is still open for discovery. I’m convinced there is something more than coincidental covariance going on here. I have a couple of ideas how the correlation may be improved even further, but I’ll keep my powder dry until we’ve had some discussion, this is Roy’s moment not mine.

We have looked at the VEJ-Sun relationship in some previous posts here and here. I hope this terrific new analysis will stimulate greater interest in planetary alignments and their effects on Solar activity.

Roy’s pdf is here:
http://www.climatestop.com/Reconstruction_of_Hung_Fig4_01.pdf

Roy has also done a further analysis and interpretation of his database which has led to a schemata explaining longer cycles in solar activity .

Update: New post now online.

Comments
  1. Ulric Lyons says:

    It would be usefull to start from SC1 and demonstrate the lack of a `missing cycle`.

  2. tallbloke says:

    Ulric,
    If you are referring to the extra long SC4, a look at Desmoulins’ graph linked above is instructive. See how the solar cycle had ‘got ahead’ of the planetary alignments, then comes back into alignment with it’s long downslope. Something similar is happening but isn’t completed yet with the long tail of SC23. This is one of the reasons I think SC24 peak will be low, with a long tailoff to 2022. We discussed the gas giant alignments regarding this last year didn’t we?

  3. Tenuc says:

    First thoughts:-

    Correlation OK SC12 to SC18. Prior to this it is messy (observational or data problem?). Goes tits up after the enormous peak in sunspot numbers in 1990, which is difficult to understand if it is gravity/tidal/angular momentum effecting SSN?

    As you say TB, the estimated SC24 SSN on the graph looks way over the top, with my guess being that it will end up in the 40-60 ballpark.

    Perhaps the sun’s dynamo(s) blew a fuse in 1990 and has not recovered since…:-)

  4. tallbloke says:

    Tenuc,
    go back to what I said on the last VEJ thread. It’s classic coupled oscillator behaviour. The Sun starts to get hyper-active with short strong cycles. It then gets ahead of the planetary alignments, which produces a counter-beating disharmony which slows down solar activity, leading to long low cycles which come back into phase with planetary alignments, allowing the solar cycle amplitudes to grow once more. Desmoulins’ graph shows it well around the 1780’s:
    Jen Pierre Desmoulins VEJ graph

  5. bushy says:

    I dont think that there is any doubt at all that the planets control the sun cycles and subsequently our climate.
    What I do think is that while a Venus Jupiter Earth model is pretty much proof enough the other planets all have a role to play. The small gravitational/tidal effect on the sun of the aforementioned has an obviously major effect so the remainder including mercury, mars and the other “giants” together must play a significant role as well, if only for fine tuning.

  6. bushy says:

    “Correlation OK SC12 to SC18. Prior to this it is messy (observational or data problem?). Goes tits up after the enormous peak in sunspot numbers in 1990, which is difficult to understand if it is gravity/tidal/angular momentum effecting SSN?”
    Again, what happens if we include the rest of the planets?

  7. Gray says:

    I agree with both comments above. The graphs support and enhance the earlier work, however, in the pdf it is accepted that they cannot fully explain the cycles running out of phase. I would say that is because the alignments do not take into account primarily Saturn’s involvement.

    The best line up for JS probably occurs as late as 2017 from a cursory look ahead which would seem too late given the sunspot number today reached 59.

    Looking at the orbital positions of Jupiter and Saturn for the peaks 1769-1778, 1829-1837 and 1947-1958. there is a considerable similarity both in position and the the peaks that arise at those times.

    There does however appear mounting evidence that all the planets have a degree of influence.

  8. tallbloke says:

    bushy,
    all in good time 🙂
    I agree with you that we need to introduce other planets into the calculations. The problem is working out the correct parameters for their interaction with the main three which time the best with the solar cycle. That’s why we’ve been looking at harmonies and such like over on Gray Stevens’ thread.

  9. Tenuc says:
    August 11, 2010 at 12:22 pm
    Perhaps the sun’s dynamo(s) blew a fuse in 1990 and has not recovered since…:-)
    Or rather, it received an overcharge from the grid. 🙂
    However I.Charvatova points out that the irregular trefoils movements began in 1985:
    While the trefoils are nearly identical (after a rotation), the disordered orbits diffe one from the other. The Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton prolonged minima of solar activity coincide with the intervals of disordered solar motion.

    Click to access charvatova.pdf

  10. tallbloke says:

    Gray, spot on, except I wouldn’t take too much notice of the SIDC sunspot number at the moment. See Geoff Sharp and Rob Bateman’s work on the ‘layman’s sunpot count’.

    Here’s your graphic:
    Gray Stevens alignments

  11. As you mention: What the mechanism is; tidal, electromagnetic, or direct gravitation/angular momentum, is still open for discovery
    It would be clarifying to have an electrical point of view as how these “homopolar” or whatever motors work as a complex machine, or if there are inductances, etc.

  12. tallbloke says:

    It’s worth remembering that the Sun has an orbital period too, in terms of it’s motion about the solar system barycenter (SSB). It’s not as constant as the planetary periods due to perturbations from (primarily) Neptune and Uranus, but its average fundamental period is equal to the Jupiter Saturn synodic period of ~19.856 years.

    I think this may be why the solar cycle tries to ‘speed up’ while the planetary alignment cycle is plodding along at 11.07 years. Half the JS-synodic period (~9.928 years on average) will be the time it takes for the Sun’s centre to swing from the furthest point it reaches from the barycenter to closest approach or vise versa. The average of these two figures (10.49 years) is not far from the 10.38 years Timo Niroma identified as the shorter of the two periods that solar cycle lengths cluster around.

    So in considering the divergence of the solar cycle from the planetary alignments, we are not necessarily looking for extra planetary alignments to add into the calculation to ‘make the discrepancy go away’. In my view it is possible to explain it in terms of the action of a pair of coupled oscillators with slightly different frequencies.

  13. Tenuc says:

    tallbloke says:
    August 11, 2010 at 12:35 pm
    “Tenuc,
    go back to what I said on the last VEJ thread. It’s classic coupled oscillator behaviour. The Sun starts to get hyper-active with short strong cycles. It then gets ahead of the planetary alignments, which produces a counter-beating disharmony which slows down solar activity, leading to long low cycles which come back into phase with planetary alignments, allowing the solar cycle amplitudes to grow once more. Desmoulins’ graph shows it well around the 1780′s…”

    Thanks TB. You could be right. Processes on the sun must be driven by deterministic chaos from a multitude of different drivers. Perhaps the extra juice used by the sun to produce the 1990 sunspot spike may have kicked it into a bifurcation which results in a different mode of operation. If so, it will be interesting to observe what effect this has on the sun’s long-term behaviour. We have only have a tiny period of solar observation, relative to the suns age, and I’m certain we are in for some surprises.

    It will be interesting to see what knock-on effects will have on the solar system, particularly our weather/climate…

    1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity (LSA?) – (Sporer minimum)
    1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity (HSA?)
    1610-1700 cold – (LSA) (Maunder minimum)
    1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
    1810-1900 cold – (LSA) (Dalton minimum)
    1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
    2010-2100 (cold???) – (LSA???)

  14. Ulric Lyons says:

    @tallbloke says:
    August 11, 2010 at 11:56 am

    Yes I am already familiar, I just thought it would be good to display this graphically, so others could see it.

  15. What do you think of this?:
    A strict application of Newtonian dynamics would render retro-calculation of planetary histories impossible…….To provide clockwork stability there must be a feedback mechanism to control orbital spacing.
    http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s&pf=YES

  16. Ulric Lyons says:

    @tallbloke says:
    August 11, 2010 at 2:34 pm
    “So in considering the divergence of the solar cycle from the planetary alignments, we are not necessarily looking for extra planetary alignments to add into the calculation to ‘make the discrepancy go away’. In my view it is possible to explain it in terms of the action of a pair of coupled oscillators with slightly different frequencies.”

    It would seem to me that if there was only J,E and V and no other bodies, that there would be no divergence.

  17. Ulric Lyons says:

    @Adolfo Giurfa says:
    August 11, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    I found a nice electrical analogy. I got a load of those yellow flashing roadwork lights, and played with circuits to make them flash at different speeds. But when they were all conected to the same power supply, they would all settle down to flash in harmony, either in unison, or 2 or 3 or 4 times the slowest, whatever was closest to their start speed.
    I actually think there is an extreme repulsion between space and matter.

  18. tallbloke says:

    It would seem to me that if there was only J,E and V and no other bodies, that there would be no divergence.

    Well, we need to construct our own alignments database (going back past SC4) and play with it to test both hypotheses.

  19. tallbloke says:

    Adolfo and Ulric,
    Miles Mathis has a repulsive force between matter built into his theory of gravity. I recommend reading his work on Bodes law for an interesting explanation of planetary spacings, and the feedback mechanism which maintains the orbits.
    http://www.milesmathis.com/bode.html

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    This got snipped last time I tried to post it. I’ll try once more before I resort to posting it on another blog, linking to here, and pointing out that it was snipped here:
    [snip]

    [Reply] Good plan. You can tell them I snipped it (or more accurately didn’t let the comment through moderation) because despite what you wrote, I know you haven’t made a study of this phenomenon in anything like the detail Roy has. I’ve just read the email you sent me while I was resting overnight, and that puts the lid on it. Enjoy yourself “on another blog”.

  21. Ulric Lyons says:

    tallbloke says:
    August 11, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    Miles is well bombastic yes !!

    “He probably throws a fit when his wife works on the crossword puzzle when he is out of the room. Physics has been taken over by very small people. ”

    I mean matter to space repulsion, not matter to matter. Very intense at the atomic level, much looser in a solar system, where the planets roll around inside the Sun`s field, and then at the galactic scale, it gathers and slowly spins as one.
    (think of 2 bodies the same size orbiting, they just swing round each other rather than attracting, like the larger bodies in Saturn`s rings do)
    Strangely enough, polyhedra spring to mind, in the physical relationship, in as much that if you try to place 5 tetrahedra together in a ring, they do not quite fit. A similar thing happens with dodecahedra, put two together, and the third does not quite fit in. I feel there is something in here which explains the latancy and movement in everything. That the repulsive force has a shear to it so nothing can stay put !

  22. tallbloke says:

    Intriguing thoughts Ulric. I’ll be putting a few comments on Gray’s thread regarding polyhedra and planets spacings soon, see you there for more on this subject.

  23. tallbloke says:

    Great news! Roy Martin has been in touch via email and will be dropping by later to add to the thread and respond to comments. Watch this space!

  24. Ulric Lyons says:

    Solar activity in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries

    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1993SoPh..145..377L/0000382.000.html

  25. Talllbloke:
    Thanks for the link. Surprising!

  26. Semi says:

    Hello.
    (I’ve not been reading this long discussion completelly yet, but want to quote to the original article instead) :

    > What the mechanism is; tidal, electromagnetic, or direct gravitation/angular momentum, is still open for discovery

    The mechanism is (by my opinion): Time derivative of Angular Speed of Sun. The FFT of that reveals, that most important for the instant changes in Sun’s motion is VENUS planet, and it’s effect is mostly influenced by Jupiter and Earth. This is, how the E-V-J trio actually works for the Sunspot cycles…

    The reasoning against “tidal” theory of Desmoulins and Hung: There is no reason to exclude Mercury, since tidally it is very important, surely more important than Earth (this knowledge is based on my calculation of precise vector-based tidal forces on the Solar surface, done for Bulgarian academy of sciences back in 2009/04). If you include all planets without prejudice, there is no EVJ pattern discernible… The reasoning of mr. Hung, why the Mercury is excluded from tidal calculation, is just not correct… (unless the Mercury planet was many times lighter than currently estimated, which does not seem much probable…) Anyhow the “configuration-day-counting” is a correct way, just the mechanism differs.

    The reasoning against the “jupiter-saturn dance” (Solar motion most influenced by large planets): The large planets make only slow and small change of Solar motion (despite they make it move most far from the barycenter in a large and slowly-changing curve), and the change of their influence on the time-scale comparable with Solar rotation is negligible… (This also explains, why the Sunspot cycle does not match the Sun-SSB motion…) More important are the instant jerks, done by small planets, on top of this curve – these change the most often… During the time of PTC’s, the path induced by large planets is more curved and probably(?) more masks the Venus effect on the Sun – this is my explanation of the observed relation between PTC’s and Sunspot minima…

    In the time-range, comparable with the Solar rotation, the most important changes to the Solar motion are due to Venus planet. (this emerges from JPL ephemerides of Solar motion by FFT analysis of the time derivative of angular speed of Sun).

    It is not very surprising, that the changes in angular speed of the Sun have got an impact on the Solar rotating dynamo…

    Also the peaks of daily Sunspot numbers seem to match the peaks of daily change of Angular Speed of Sun…

    I’ve recently uploaded the 2010/03 version of my draft http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Periodicities_in_the_Solar_system__Draft-current.pdf where the Derivative of Angular Speed of Sun compared with the Sunspot cycle is on image A9 (page 15), the bottom red part. There is also extensive reasoning about the tidal forces at the start of the paper… There is also some reasoning about Earth&Venus angular momentum charts at the end, and some sketches of discussion, taken from email correspondence and meditating, which would be rather deleted from the final version… (I found no spare time to work on it more from March, just now I’ve gave up the plans about finishing or just correcting it soon…)

    I’m still a lot suspicious about this result and will need to spend more time with the proof, and there is not enough time for it yet, sorry…

  27. DirkH says:

    Didn’t read all comments, so i don’t know if it’s been mentioned, but the biggest spikes in the sunspot number happen when the solar cycle is in sync – no phase shift, IOW – with the planetary tidal index; and when this happens several times, the sunspots peak higher every time.

    Looks like 2 oscillators with slightly different frequencies, the first one (tidal) feeding into the second (sunspots). Reminds me of synced oscillators in analog synthesizers.

  28. tallbloke says:

    Semi,
    Thank you very much for updating us with the latest draft of your work. It is great to get a clear, concise and well thought out overview of the various possibilities, backed up with your beautifully produced graphs. With your permission I will use some of the graphs in future posts here, as it is clear you don’t have the time for a long thread of your own like last time. I’ll email you when there is someting relevant to your interests.

    Everyone interested in this subject should download and enjoy the fruit of Semi’s labour that he has kindly shared with us.

    Click to access Periodicities_in_the_Solar_system__Draft-current.pdf

  29. Ulric Lyons says:

    @Semi says:
    August 12, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    Jupiter/Earth/Venus syzygies are exclusive to the solar cycle, they only happen around solar maximum, this cannot be said for any other combination of Jupter and/or the inner planets, which is why Mercury is not included in the causation of the solar cycle itself.
    Hung does not disregard syzygies involving Mercury in short term increases in solar activity such as flares, neither did J. H. Nelson, and it would be of course seen as a modulator of the solar cycle, as Mars and even Ceres should be.

  30. Buffoon says:

    Im curious if the reason certain planets appear dominant is a proportionality to magnetic field swept by some aspect of lateral motion, and the location on the standing wave of the heliocentric sheet.

  31. P.G. Sharrow says:

    I studied the above Roy Martin graph for some time last night. I see the planet tidal index leading SSN to cycle 12, lagging to 16, then leading cycle 18 thru the present cycle. It appears to me that the timeing of the index to the peak drags the number up if it leads and pulls the number down if it lags the peak timeing.There is also an amount of index effect that adds or decreases the SSN. This appears to me to be an indication of Tallblokes’ push – pull of the planets on the suns dynamo. Changing both the timeing and amount of the solar energy output. While all of the solar system effects the sun, getting the major players effects in hand will make the rest easier to add to add in.
    A number of the contributers here seem to have a very good grasp of the timeing of the effects of the sun on the earth. Getting the cause explaination right is the nut we are searching for.
    I think that the secret is in the medium of space and cause of mass/inertia.

    This is a lot more fun then going to the bar and I don’t have to dress. 🙂

  32. tallbloke says:


    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 12, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    I’m in principle suspicious of claims that are ‘beyond doubt’. The phase differences shoots down the idea. since we have sunspot data back to ~1700 and planetary data much further back, one wonders why the analysis begins in the 1840s. The ‘analysis’ seems to be standard fare, nothing new there, move on 🙂 Introducing ever more planets and tweaking ever more knobs can help any purported correlation. One can even introduce an ‘anomaly’ formula that will take care of any differences and try to find some correlation with something to explain the errors. In the end, it is a question of energy. If the planets were 100 times more massive and 10 times closer, they would exert a strong tidal influence. We see that for other stars, but for today’s solar system there is not enough energy in the planetary influences to have any effect. To overcome that hurdle the correlation has to be MUCH better. Another stumbling block is that the Sun rotates and any planetary influence ‘sweeps’ over the surface [and interior] every 27 days.

    The various suggestions that people have come up with are either unphysical or not operative. We have gone over this many times on [WUWT]. Look back at some of the relevant threads.
    But it doesn’t really matter because the correlations are not that good that they cry out for an explanation.

    [reply] Leif’s certainty on the issue is unwarranted. We don’t even understand the circulations and interactions of the sodium ions and chlorine radicals of dissolved salts in the oceans on our own planet yet, let alone the energetic particles whizzing around in the interplanetary electromagnetic soup and the conducive (without a ‘t’) pathways they follow. Hence all the new and conflicting papers in the solar physics journals on flux ropes, reconnection with planetary magnetospheres, etc etc. As to the quality of the correlation, R^2 values aren’t everything, and I recommend people look carefully at the graph, read the discussion and form their own opinions bearing in mind we haven’t finished the work on this yet. A bit like Leif’s response to me when I pushed him on the progress solar physicists have made in understanding why the equatorial region of the sun circulates faster than the polar regions. “We’re working on it :-)” was his reply. Two to keep an eye on in my opinion.

  33. Roy Martin says:

    Various contributors have commented on the inclusion of only Venus, Earth & Jupiter. This note may help to clarify…

    Although Hung found that Mercury was associated with flare activity, his FFT analysis of the full data set did not show a significant peak around the eleven year period in any combination of planets in which it was included. He obviously decided on that basis to not include it in the tidal index analysis. Since a principal objective of my study in this pdf was to come up with a procedure that effectively reproduced his results, I simply followed his lead. But I agree that Mercury should be included in follow on studies, because it does contribute significantly to the tidal force on the Sun.

    Hung made another major approximation when he ascribed the same tidal influence to each of V, E and J. As percentages of the total planetary tidal influence the major tidal planets actually contribute: Jupiter-34.7%, Venus-33.1%, Earth-15.4% and Mercury-14.6%. A thorough going analysis would have to include these as parameters at the appropriate values, but in my opinion their omission at this stage does not invalidate the inference that the length of the sunspot cycle is closely linked to the index as initially defined.

    Saturn only contributes 1.7% of the total, so could have only a minor effect on the total tidal forces, but even so it might influence variability at particular alignments and on longer time scales. The effect of the other planets would appear to be negligible.

    We should not try to draw too much from this chart. As pointed out in my note, it is constructed from only about the top 25% of values of the index, thus a lot of information embedded in the data set are deliberately excluded. There is much more to be learned, as tallbloke and I hope to show in a later post. This is just the curtain raiser.

  34. tallbloke says:

    Welcome back Roy, and thanks for your further notes. Bearing in mind the electromagnetic and other posibilities, the tidal quantification is useful, although Semi might have something to say on this as his figures differ. Tides induced on Earth by the Moon are not fully understood, and the equations are ad hoc approximations rather than being on a sound physical footing in the opinion of some researchers.

    Another factor which might be considered is the length of time planets are in conjunction. Mercury is a fast mover, and it’s influence doesn’t get reinforced by other planets for long. Jupiter and Earth spend the longest in close alignment of the planets which show strong phase relationships to the solar cycle. Then there is Mars, I hope Gray will weigh in on this thread with some of his observations regarding the red planet.

  35. Gray says:

    Hi tallbloke

    There have been some interesting comments here and it is good to see this work examined. The key question to me is undoubtedly why the JEV index runs out of phase with the sunspot peaks and why, when in phase, the peaks appear augmented. Or, to put it another way, if JEV consist one phase what consists the other?

    With Mars, I do feel it gets a bad press, always reduced to a bit part or supporting role. It doesn’t have great mass, has a limited magnetic field, yet times very closely to the solar cycle.

    I wonder if diurnal tidal effects play some part in this in that when the Moon is directly above the equator the two daily tides are equal, whereas when at extreme latitudes the Moon creates a high high tide and a low high tide. Obviously this would be considerably more complex on the Solar scale.

  36. tallbloke says:

    Gray,
    The magnetic field of Mars is 1/800 that of Earth. According to Roy’s tidal calculations, it has 0.467% of the total planetary tidal effect on the Sun. I still won’t discount it though, because if my idea that the link between the planets and the solar cycle could be caused by the positions of the planets providing conducive pathways for the Sun’s energy to flow towards, then it’s inherent ‘power’ as a tide raiser or electromagnetic emitter is not important.

    It’s relatively low mass and diameter compared to its neighbours has to be bourne in mind though.

  37. Roy Martin says:

    Gray says:
    “There have been some interesting comments here and it is good to see this work examined. The key question to me is undoubtedly why the JEV index runs out of phase with the sunspot peaks and why, when in phase, the peaks appear augmented. Or, to put it another way, if JEV consist one phase what consists the other?”

    Gray, I suggest that the answer to the phase variation lies largely within the Sun itself. It is an enormous source of energy, and if the weak tidal effects of the planets do in fact play a role, it can only be to maintain a tenuous control over the timing of the events we observe as the solar cycle. Further work may have helped us closer to an understanding of what is actually happening. I think we are observing a system that appears to be generally synchronous, but slightly unstable.

  38. Gray says:

    tallbloke,

    There is always the possibility that Mars is merely a marker for the effects of the other planets being that it is timed, presumably by the sweeping effect of Jupiter, closely to the other planets orbital frequencies.

    Or, there is a subtle interplay, as yet to be understood, which allows it to punch above its weight so to speak. Like you I keep an open mind.

  39. Gray says:

    Hi Roy

    Thanks for the answer. It may well be the case that the Sun has a cycle frequency of its own which the planets occasionally and cyclically coincide with. However, I find that doesn’t reconcile with events such as the Maunder Minimum when it appears the Sun has no visible frequency of its own. An alternative would be that during such periods the planets could be asynchronous and diminish the Sun’s cycle.

  40. DirkH says:

    tallbloke says:
    August 13, 2010 at 7:09 am

    “Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 12, 2010 at 7:34 pm
    […]Introducing ever more planets and tweaking ever more knobs can help any purported correlation. “[…]”

    To which i would say: Why not? The real test is whether it has predictive power.
    To test whether a model has predictive power, it is often useful to divide the data into two parts – the first part being used to train the model, and after the model has been refined, test it on the second half of the data to see whether it predicts successfully.

  41. Buffoon says:

    “It may well be the case that the Sun has a cycle frequency ”

    Sun cycle:
    Phase between the rotation of the core and the rotation of the outer layers is regulated by the induction due to the giant magnetosphere. The sun cycle is filtered by an inductor.

    This inductor filtering is modified by the electrical work induced by the magnetic fields of the planets sweeping through the magnetic field of the sun.

    Observed effect of groups of planets represents the beat frequency nature of their respective work curves when summed at the center of the largest field (sun sheet,) because the effects of individual planets are obviously cyclical.

    The work is thus proportional to
    the strength of the magnetic field of a given planet,
    the amount of magnetosphere which it sweeps over time,
    the oscillatory strength of the magnetosphere(s) during the interaction,
    the angle between them.
    There’s probably even some weak effect of the various proportionally-large moons to modify the parents’ magnetospheres’ ability to dot with the sheet field.

    While I’m crazily musing, what about that giant inductive field surrounding the sun? If it is in part due to the relationship between the core and the outer layers, in the absense of planets to do work on the relationship, what would happen? If such a giant magnetic field were to collapse (suddenly,) all the energy in the field would do electric work on the sun. Basically a big instant energy input. Supernova mechanism? I need coffee.

  42. You say it right: You need coffee 🙂
    Because, if you see the following image, where all the stars at Andromeda are connected, you will see it differently:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/new-cosmological-model-bye-bye-big-bang/

  43. tallbloke says:

    Dirk,
    It is not a matter of simply “include more planets to get a better correlation”. There will be several ‘near misses’ to be found that way. We need to find the underlying cause which informs our choice of parameters. This is especially difficult in the sphere of astrophysics, because we don’t have easy access to interplanetary space to make measurements. Nor do we have the clout to decide what experiments the NASA boys and girls perform with the satellites. We will have to work with whatever data we can glean, and to be fair to Leif, he has been very helpful in directing us to the sources of data we can use.

    In the meantime, it is perfectly acceptable to try various possibilties with the data until we find a good match, and then retro analyse the parameters to discover what forces are in play. This is why Leif quite rightly comments that we need a much better correlation before we can be taken seriously. Then we can employ the method you mention (also used by Dr Roy Spencer recently) to test the model. The advantage we have here is that the sunspot record is longer than most indices climate scientists get to play with.

  44. tallbloke says:

    Buffoon:
    Yes, I think the sun would tend to get into a runaway condition if it were not for the planets holding it in check. I think this is why the higher amplitude, shorter cycle length episodes end in a collapse in activity after the Sun ‘runs ahead’ of the planetary alignment cycles. Then lower, longer cycles allow the planetary cycles to ‘catch up’ and help lift the solar activity out of the doldrums. You can see it in the graph at the top of the thread, and in the Desmoulins graph in comments below.

    The planets act as a ‘governor’, modulating the activity of the solar steam engine. I covered this in an earlier post.

  45. DirkH says:

    tallbloke says:
    August 13, 2010 at 7:39 pm
    “[…]glean, and to be fair to Leif, he has been very helpful in directing us to the sources of data we can use.”

    I totally respect Leif. He’s just not in a position to try out crazy ideas.

  46. Zeke the Sneak says:

    “Yes, I think the sun would tend to get into a runaway condition if it were not for the planets holding it in check.”

    It would be interesting to make a comparison of our Sun’s activity with that of other absolute magnitude 5, spectral class G main sequence variable stars.

    What you said reminded me of a passing comment made by an astronomer I heard once, that we are “fortunate” that our Sun does not have as many enormous flares as others of its exact type.

    This is just a doodle on the wall here (-:

  47. P.G. Sharrow says:

    In a properly set up ampifier, whether electronic or magnetic, a small signal change will result in a large output change. 100 to 1 gain is not impossiable in a well balanced system.

  48. Gray says:

    tallbloke

    I’ve had a preliminary read of Roy’s new paper and it looks very interesting. It seemingly confirms many of the bi-modal figures we’d restablished based on Earth, Venus Jupiter alignments and it may yet prove in some way the influence of the other planets that we have discussed. Being a dense read I’ll have to print it out and study it before commenting further.

  49. Semi says:

    These planetary “alignments” are important also for the planetary moves: the best-resonating planetary sub-system (E-V) is most influenced by the Jupiter, and the alignments make the planets move faster or slower – giving more or less orbital energy to them… (So it can work well even without the tidal influence path…)

    Back to the 22-year Signed Sunspot cycle of Desmoulins (and also used in my works, but now I little doubt, if it is any real?): it is also matched quite well with gains and loses of orbital energy of both Earth and Venus planets, of which the Earth could exchange the energy with Solar surface layers magnetically – being it (Earth) the most important magnetic influence on Solar surface with a period comparable with Solar spin (the Jupiter being much more far from the period), exchanging electro-magnetic energy by the recently discovered Flux ropes…

    Also, the Earth planet vibrates on the orbit in 27.3-day (or 29.5-day?) cycle due to Moon, which is well in-sync with the Solar “spin” itself – and the Sunspot Belt starts from the latitude, which is best synchronized with Earth vibration, and moves toward the equator during the cycle…

    Javaraiah et al. (Periodicities in the Solar differential rotation, surface magnetic field and planetary configurations) found, that the latitudinal dependence of Solar differential rotation has got 18.3 +-3 years (elsewhere mentioning 18.9), which reminds me of the Moon cycle of a similar length… Anyhow he found another correlation of Solar differentail rotation with planets, but specially the 18.9-year cycle he matched with 19.86 cycle of J-S, which is not much near the value by my opinion… (he found more periodicities and matched most of them to various planets…) There is also shown a strong correlation between differential rotation and Sunspot cycles, in short words (as I understood it??): the Sun rotates faster during Sunspot minima…

    ——————————————————————
    Tallbloke:
    > With your permission I will use some of the graphs in future posts here

    You are welcome… (consider this a “permission”)…

    Some of the images can be downloaded from http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Periodicities_in_the_Solar_system__Supplement.zip (27Mb), including some used images plus data-files for my EphView program (can be downloaded nearby from http://semi.gurroa.cz/EphView/ , just drag-drop the XML file on running EphView program to open the chart), and if you want some image in another resolution or level of detail, just ask me…

    Beware, that Semi is just an amateur and there may be some errors, specially in explanations… The whole work is just a collection (and refutation) of various ideas…

    > I’ll email you when there is someting relevant to your interests.
    I’m getting your articles by email already… While not having time to follow all discussions, I try to read the articles at least in the email digest, sometimes online… Thank you for your work!

  50. P.G. Sharrow says:

    “Magnetic ropes” to move the sun. Reminds me of my swabby days. A single sailor can move an 80,000 ton ship on the water. 1 tenth horse power. Such is the energy needed to overcome mass/inertia. pg

  51. RACookPE1978 says:

    tallbloke says:
    August 11, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    Tenuc,
    go back to what I said on the last VEJ thread. It’s classic coupled oscillator behaviour. The Sun starts to get hyper-active with short strong cycles. It then gets ahead of the planetary alignments, which produces a counter-beating disharmony which slows down solar activity, leading to long low cycles which come back into phase with planetary alignments, allowing the solar cycle amplitudes to grow once more. Desmoulins’ graph shows it well around the 1780′s: [graph follows, showing a “pulsed behavior” whose amplitude varies over 3-4 sunspot cycles.]

    —…—…

    There is a long-observed 60-80 year “short cycle” of average temperatures, AMO/PDO trends, rainfall, and (apparently) Arctic/Antarctic ice extents. Clearly this cycle doesn’t (directly) come from the sunspot cycle, but the sunspots (measured by number of spotless days, number of spots, length of the cycle, etc) DO “come in groups of three”. That is, 3 short hot cycles will appear, then 3 slower, low intensity cycle, then three hot fast ones again, etc.

    Clearly though, the sunspot 11.9 (average! – remember,unlike orbits, this is NOT an exact repeating cycle => which may be a clue as to the fundamental cause of the change in the 11.9 year average about a mean period) year cycle will be a symptom of the fundamental cause. The change in magnetic fields at each cycle will also be either a cause, or a function of the more fundamental cause. Such energy changes in the fields across such vast scales as the sun’s diameter with such masses of particles involved cannot merely be random, but must be responding to a driving force.

    The underlaying cause? Don’t know yet. But look for (and find!) a 60-80 year periodic change in the sun’s environment that maintains the cycle.

  52. tallbloke says:

    PG.
    consider the force the weight a man can lift hit’s the ground with from a few feet in the air. Then consider that an itty bitty little magnet can overcome the gravitaional force the entire planet brings to bear on a pin that it levitates off a table top.

    Magnetism is strong.

  53. P.G. Sharrow says:

    I should add, that the sun rests in a sea of aether and not water. Water has a much greater resistance to disturbance. pg

  54. tallbloke says:

    RA Cook, welcome. If you look at this previous thread https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/timo-niroma-on-solar-cycle-lengths/ and note the bipolar clustering of cycle lengths around 10.38 years and 12.05 years calculated by Timo Niroma from solar data. This matches the differing periodicities in successive V-E-J alignment cycles, as Ray Tomes explains on that thread. See also Roy’s second thread on this blog:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/roy-martin-new-planetary-solar-cyclicity-hypothesis/

  55. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Yes, your magnet is organized Emf at the molecular level. While most effects are in chaos.

  56. tallbloke says:
    August 13, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    Gray,
    The magnetic field of Mars is 1/800 that of Earth. According to Roy’s tidal calculations, it has 0.467% of the total planetary tidal effect on the Sun. I still won’t discount it though, because if my idea that the link between the planets and the solar cycle could be caused by the positions of the planets providing conducive pathways for the Sun’s energy to flow towards, then it’s inherent ‘power’ as a tide raiser or electromagnetic emitter is not important.

    Reply: The permanent magnet fields of a planet (which Lief is so fond of mentioning) is only the residual hysteric loss of the previous magnetic conduction felt on that body. The real effects in the electromagnetic oscillation components (planets / sun) is the total inductive effects due to the total amount of magnetically permeable material in that body, that is utilized to conduct pulses of flux from the sun into and out of the planetary bodies and the heliopause in concert with the galactic field interactions.

    The total magnetic flux carrying capacity of ferrous materials is several orders of magnitude above the much weaker residual permanent fields commonly found in nature, and in the best high density lab magnets manufactured is still less than 10% of the maximum induction possible through them, used to form them.

    And yes PG, magnetic field strengths are 10^37 times stronger than gravity. If we could find a method to convert all the matter in an atom, directly into energy (not just the internal binding forces of the components of a small percentage of neutrons as in fusion) and control that output into a clean directional electromotive force, light speed travel with little loss of total mass is possible.

  57. Geoff Sharp says:

    It looks like everyone is in agreement here, the JEV alignments keep pace with the solar cycle length but moves out of sync at the top of the solar angular momentum wave. We might have to wait awhile to see the synchronization return but in the meantime I wonder if its worth trying to link the JEV alignments with the 17 year torsional oscillation flows that Dr. Howe writes about. For me they hold the key for the governance of solar cycle lengths.

    Link here http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/02/25/latest-solar-differential-rotation-information/ for anyone that might like to have a go.

  58. Buffoon says:

    tallbloke says:
    August 13, 2010 at 7:45 pm
    Buffoon:
    Yes, I think the sun would tend to get into a runaway condition if it were not for the planets holding it in check. I think this is why the higher amplitude, shorter cycle length episodes end in a collapse in activity after the Sun ‘runs ahead’ of the planetary alignment cycles. Then lower, longer cycles allow the planetary cycles to ‘catch up’ and help lift the solar activity out of the doldrums. You can see it in the graph at the top of the thread, and in the Desmoulins graph in comments below.

    Sure.
    Did you propose a mechanism?

  59. tallbloke says:

    Buffoon says:
    August 17, 2010 at 2:03 pm (Edit)

    Sure.
    Did you propose a mechanism?

    I’m tending towards the view that the Venus Earth Jupiter effect on the solar cycle is principally electromagnetic in nature. It looks to me like there are other periodicities having longer term effects ont the rising and falling of average solar activity levels too, and the mechanism for that could be to do with angular momentum changes on the sun as it orbits around the centre of mass. Specifically a ~180 year cycle concerning the four gas giants and possibly a ~900 year cycle caused by the precession of Jupiter-Saturn conjunction points.

    I have been testing the electromagnetic idea using a modified version of Roy’s calculations. Preliminary results look very good.

  60. tallbloke says:

    Here is the plot I have made using my modified version of Roy’s planetary alignment database, which he kindly sent me.
    VEJ alignments - sunspot numbers

    The changes I have made are to allow for the curvature of the interplanetary magnetic field and to reduce the influence of Venus, as it doesn’t have it’s own magnetosphere. At this stage this is just and engineering estimate, not a rigorous scientific analysis. I am hunting for data on the paths followed by ‘flux ropes’ out into the IMF if anyone knows of any.

    The correlation Roy Martin worked on involved the assumption of the predominance of a tidal effect of the planets on the Sun. The correlation I have plotted matches the minima MUCH better, and leads me to think the mechanism affecting the timing and shape of the solar cycle is predominantly an electromagnetic effect produced on the solar surface and induced by the planetary alignment positions taking into account the curvature of the interplanetary magnetic field. This does not require large amount of energy to pass from the planets to the solar surface to be effective.

    The overall amplitude of the cycles is I think affected predominantly by another mechanism, possibly related to the up and down motion of the sun relative to the gas giants. Jupiter, being the biggest planet in the middle of the system is part of both mechanisms.

  61. Tenuc says:

    Good graph TB, which will need some time to ponder. Not sure that there is too much information about ‘flux ropes’ as they are a fairly recent discovery and there are few observations made, although it may be worth a look on the NASA site?

  62. tallbloke says:

    Leif tells me they follow the curve of the IMF, which helps validate the above graph.

  63. bushy says:

    May I just chuck in my tuppence worth.
    I would assume that in the inner reaches of the sun where all the fusion activity goes on remains constant with a gradual change due to depletion of hydrogen and so on. This would make sense as the small pertubations made by the planets would not effect the internal pressure and temperature of the sun that governs its overall output. That would then imply that the energy arriving at the surface layers are constant over time.
    During high activity the sun radiates out increased energy as can be measured here on earth and this can persist over many cycles and consequently depleting the surface layers of the sun of energy.
    So, as happens with enso here on earth, why can we not have a similar solar effect controlled by the tidal effects of the planets? Makes sense to me as it is not feasable that the internal solar dynamo would change.

  64. […] Roy Martin: amazing new Venus Earth Jupiter – Solar cycle analysis […]

  65. Semi says:

    Hello.

    I invite you to try my tidal calculator / visualisation – program EphView (based on JPL ephemerides) http://semi.gurroa.cz/EphView/

    The description, how to visualise or compute precise tidal force values (vector-based solution, sums tidal vectors from selected planets at each surface point (in 5° mesh)), see the file Readme.Tidal …

    I’ve spent last 4 years calculating (not only but mainly) tidal forces on the Sun, and I may tell you, that they DO NOT cause the Sunspot cycle:
    – not only because they are very tiny (at least some 5000 times smaller than tides on Earth)
    – but also because there is no substantive notion of the planetary “alignments” in tides, as the tides on the Sun are dominated by 12-year Jupiter pulse (the difference between “well aligned” and “poor aligned” planets is very small compared to difference between “Jupiter is near” and “Jupiter is far”), and on a short scale by Mercury pulse, which varies most due to its excentricity… (see figures T2b and T2c in my recent draft)

    So although there may be some tidal influence (as shown by K.Georgieva, it may influence the length/intensity of the following cycle a little), there is no match in timing of Sunspot cycles and Tidal forces…

    This does not mean, that the “planet alignment index” you calculated is not important for Sunspot cycles, just that the influence path is NOT tidal…

    I’ve got rather another theory – more on it in another thread here…

  66. Roy Martin says:

    Semi, I have been trying unsuccessfully to locate a copy of K Georieva’s paper Ref: T3 in your Draft of Some Periodicities…, etc.. Can you help me with a copy or a link please?