Variations of the Sun Velocity correlate in various ways with the Solar Cycles, research paper in GSjournal

Posted: October 1, 2011 by tchannon in Astrophysics, Solar physics, solar system dynamics

bart-3647-1

Variations of the Sun Velocity correlate in various ways with the Solar Cycles, author:  Bart Leplae

Abstract

This paper covers several correlations between variations of the Sun Velocity (as influenced by the relative positions of the planets) and different aspects of the Solar Cycle, including: the Sun Spot Cycle, Polar Magnetic Field and Hemispheric Phase differences. This paper does not provide a hypothesis (causal relationship) for physics that would explain the observed correlations.

Published online 25th Sept 2011, ID 3647


Bart Leplae notified us on Tallbloke’s here

I’ve headlined an image from the research paper which suggests a linkage between solar acceleration and the shape of a solar cycle, where the most obvious difference is whether a sunspot cycle has a flattened top or not, an example being cycle 20, circa 1970. I add that I’m not clear how this relates to cycles which tend to double peaks such as cycle 23 (we are currently in cycle 24).

The author includes magnetic data and phase information in reaching his conclusions, which whilst not causal, are a useful presentation of concepts many find difficult.

Tim Channon

[on posting I spelt Leplae incorrectly, entirely my mistake,  sincere apologies: Tim]

Comments
  1. Ray Tomes says:

    I do not believe that there is any meaningful relationship of Sun’s velocity to other variables. Likewise for the Sun’s distance from the barycentre. Ask yourself the Sun’s velocity relative to what? If you answer the solar system barycentre, then I ask why not the galaxy, or the local system of stars? You will extremely different answers when you include different objects in the calculation. There is no valid reason to include some objects and not others.

  2. Tenuc says:

    Ray Tomes says:
    October 2, 2011 at 8:25 am
    “…Ask yourself the Sun’s velocity relative to what? If you answer the solar system barycentre, then I ask why not the galaxy, or the local system of stars? You will extremely different answers when you include different objects in the calculation. There is no valid reason to include some objects and not others.

    Agree with you totally on this, Ray. The sun feels the effects of all bodies in its reference frame of the universe and experiences varying amounts of energy of various types at each moment in time, depending on exactly where it sits in this ‘reference’ frame. How these changes to energy levels/types effect the solar activity cycle will also vary depending on at what stage the sums internal cycle is at when they occur.

    I don’t believe that the acceleration of gravity will have any effect on the sun, as every atom ‘feels’ this acceleration at the exact same time. Momentum is also not involved, as the sun is in free-fall. My best guess is that it is the EM field which is the root cause of the observed correlations, with the positions of the planets being entrained to the heartbeat of the sun/universe over billions of years.

  3. Michele says:

    Big comment Ray.
    Your words remind me…
    The all is one….michael talbot.
    There isn’t the outside the inside
    Universe is irrational.

    Bye

  4. tchannon says:

    Bart has commented in an email “For solar cycle 23, the value sits right on top of the linear regression line.” which will be in response to my wondering whether double peak cycles are like flat top, suggesting they are.

    In my view this shape difference is a major clue to do with sunspot cycle drive.

  5. Roger Andrews says:

    “There is a correlation between maximum number of sunspots reached after solar cycle rise and the slope of the increase”. The slope of the increase is dependent on the maximum number of sunspots, so a correlation is inevitable.

  6. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Michele: Really a great coment from Ray. I would add: The velocity of the sun´s atmosphere?
    If we accept that the higher the energy, the smaller the wavelength (in this case diameter), then the solid sun (behind the “clouds”) would be smaller than the earth:

    Sun´s Diameter
    8477.301266 km
    Earth´s Frequency
    1.15741E-05
    Sun´s Frequency
    1.73373E-05

  7. tchannon says:

    Olsen, I have moved your two very off topic comments to Suggestions, put them there or find a topic where they are apt: some people have an RSS feed on old articles and will see comment.
    I know it can be a difficult call to make, sometimes asides are apt.
    Tim

  8. Bart Leplae says:

    I want to clarify that the sun velocity is calculated relative to a reference frame of a distant observer who looks on top of the Solar System and who is not affected by the gravity of the solar system. This is different from determining the Sun velocity relative to the barycenter.

    If the solar system would be filled with air (which is definitively not the case), the sun velocity would be velocity of the wind felt by the sun.The acceleration is the acceleration ‘felt’ by the sun which does not depend on the chosen reference frame.

    I agree with the comments that acceleration or gravity are most likely not the direct causes of the observed effects. I included my own hypothesis in a prior paper: http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3484

    This hypothesis builds further upon a paradox related to stellar aberration (we can observe stars of which the physics books tell us that these should be hidden behind the moon): http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3383

  9. P.G. Sharrow says:

    An object in motion tends to stay in that path until acted on by an outside force that changes the motion. The giga tons of mass/inertia of the sun dances to and fro under the influence of the rest of the solar system. Every atom is effected slightly different then it’s neighbor. The changes in relative motion of material/atoms cause EMF distortion. EMF distortions build up huge potential differences that must discharge to regain balance.

    We know that the sun dances around the center of gravity of the solar system under the influence of the planets. While some maintain that the sun is in free fall and can “feel” no effects from this motion we know that the matter of the sun is embedded in the fabric of space and must internally feel any change in it’s motion. Due to it’s size and rotation, the various planets must effect parts of the suns material in their order. Many tidal effects that add or subtract as they stir the solar pot. pg

  10. Brian H says:

    If the fabric of spacetime is curved, and the sun is following it, it doesn’t “feel” any forces as a whole. But the sun is not a point, it is not identical to its center of gravity. I suggest that it would be far more productive to consider the differential effects of its motions on different parts of the sun: the poles, the equator, the core, the outer layers. That is where all the dynamic stuff occurs, anyhow.

  11. malagaview says:

    I do not believe that there is any meaningful relationship of Sun’s velocity to other variables
    I am far more tempted to suspect there is a relationship – especially regarding the sun’s electromagnetic activities… think about electric generators… or even the dynamo theory regarding Earth’s magnetic field… although I am personally inclined towards a capacitor theory for the sun and the planets… they are all (basically) multi-layered balls of stuff… so you have a multiple layer capacitor with the heavier core elements degassing… the degassing causes breaks in the insulation between layers of the capacitors… this causes quakes, eruptions and electrical surges… and size of the ball determines the scale of these activities – which are extreme when we consider the sun… additionally: this big multi-layered capacitor (the sun) is being spun around and whirled about the solar system and galaxy – hence velocity has a big impact upon electromagnetic activity.

  12. Tenuc says:

    malagaview says:
    October 3, 2011 at 6:15 pm “…….”

    Great post MV, which tells it the way it is. I can’t understand how main-stream science can continue to ignore how EM and electromagnetic forces drive celestial mechanics. We have a sun which contains a spinning magnetic core surrounded by a dense conductive plasma. It is constantly spitting out countless ions, electrons and protons which interact with the spinning planets and effect their orbital and internal processes.

    Common sense must prevail one day, but until we fully understand that gravity and magnetism are not the primary drivers little progress to our understanding will be made.

    Bart’s papers are worth a read here…
    http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3484

    and here…
    http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3383

    Both have some controversial but interesting ideas!

  13. P.G. Sharrow says:

    @Tenuc says:
    October 3, 2011 at 6:43 pm

    Thanks for the “Bart Leplae” links. It appears to me that Bart has a good grasp on the true effects of the material that permeates all of space and is the fluid that our solar system swims in and is the medium that conducts all energy transfer. pg

  14. malagaview says:

    @ Tenuc
    Thanks for your kind words… and the interesting links.

    I can’t understand how main-stream science can continue to ignore how EM and electromagnetic forces drive celestial mechanics.

    Very much my view….

    I have just finished reading a book about our magnetic earth… it was written by a mainstream university professor. It is an interesting introduction into geomagnetism… the books starts with a very opened minded approach because the author wants mainstream scientists to embrace the relatively new science of geomagnetism… however, if you continue reading the approach starts to change once he has demonstrated that geomagnetism is really a legitimate mainstream science… by the end of the book the author is resorting to arguments of authority and labelling alternative ideas as pseudo-science. Big Fail!

    As the books expands upon the topic of geomagnetism it introduces the dynamo theory… which was interesting… but as I read I experienced a strong sensation of deja vu because the dynamo theory seems to be primarily based upon [and validated by] computer models… [now where have I heard that before?]… computer models that spontaneously (and randomly) reversed polarity… [which means the simulation uses a random number function to determine polarity – I thought wow! and wondered if this is documented in their HARRY READ ME file :-)].

    So whenever you see a fancy geomagnetic image like this: http://stargazers.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/geospace_images/magnet_in_space/field.gif
    Remember it is not the real thing… it was generated by computer simulation.

  15. Bart Leplae says:

    A hypothesis on the topic of the Earth magnetic field:

    By rotating around its own axis, the surface (and outer core) of the Earth becomes subject to a medium that rotates relative to the surface of the earth.

    This effect was measured by Michelson – Gale:
    http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/2582

    In turn, this medium flow induces an electric current in the outer core of the Earth which builds up the Earth magnetic field. This magnetic field in the outer core the Earth in turn induces the magnetic field in the inner (liquid) core of the Earth.

    When both outer an inner core have a strong magnetic field pointing in the same direction, the inner, liquid, core will reverse polarity (through the migration of materials) due to the simple fact that magnets with the same orientation repel each other.

    The above hypothesis explains why planets (such as Mercury) can have a magnetic field without the need for having a liquid core.

    The fact that the rotating medium can have an impact on electrical cables was confirmed through the following expirement involving coax cables:

    Click to access 0608205v1.pdf

  16. Tenuc says:

    Bart Leplae says:
    October 5, 2011 at 5:01 pm
    “A hypothesis on the topic of the Earth magnetic field…”

    Thanks Bart, for more food for thought – my ‘to read and absorb’ list gets ever longer… 🙂

  17. P.G. Sharrow says:

    I would be careful about drawing conclusions from the data reported. While I am sure that the reported observations are factual, I’m not sure of cause and effect conclusions. The existence of a medium that conducts EMF and gravity and produces the observed effects of mass/inertia is, In my opinion, a fact. The explaination of this or that effect needs more thought. pg

  18. Bart Leplae says:

    A hypothesis is only as good is it puts as in a position to explain certain observations …

    Back in June this year, there was the message “A Big Surprise from the Edge of the Solar System” related to the Voyager probes leaving the Solar system:
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/heliosphere-surprise.html

    The model whereby a medium rotates around the sun with the same speed as the planets explains the observed behavior as follows: the magnetic bubbles that are observed on the boundary of solar system (where the rotating medium touches with the non-rotating medium) are caused by the effect of turbulance.

    A moving/rotating medium, such as in the magnetic bubbles, is thereby the essence of magnetism.

    Two parallel wires with a current going in the same direction attract each other because each wire drags the surrounding medium in the same direction as the electrons. The medium between the two wires moves faster because of the combined effect of the two wires. The parallel wires feel a force towards each other because of the ‘Bernouilli effect’.

    As a consequence, the medium rotating around the sun acts as a large ‘magnet’ which we call ‘gravitomagnetism’.

    If we then read an article such as: Inclined Orbits Prevail In Exoplanetary Systems
    http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Inclined_Orbits_Prevail_In_Exoplanetary_Systems_999.html
    we can think about the following explanation: the medium rotating around the star acts as a magnet and can be acted upon by other magnetic forces. So the observed inclinations can be the result of a ‘magnetic / gravitomagnetic’ encounter with another solar system. (whereby we assume that the planets tend to align themselves with the rotating medium).

  19. Bart Leplae says:

    I posted a status update in : “Does the current Sunspot Cycle stagnate?”
    http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4260