Ian Wilson: Resynchronisation of the solar cycle with Jupiter Earth Venus tides

Posted: April 22, 2012 by tallbloke in Astrophysics, Energy, Solar physics, solar system dynamics, Tides

Huge thanks to astrophysicist Ian Wilson for this guest post which asks the questions overlooked or avoided by researchers in the mainstream of (sub)’standard’ model solar physics. Although Ian ‘frames no hypotheses’ regarding the physical mechanism(s) underlying the connection between solar variation and planetary motion, he continues to ask the searching questions which demand further investigation. The chance of these relationships holding across centuries by pure chance is so ridiculously low that the continued deliberate ignorance of them is less and less excusable as more and better correlations are  discovered. Ian’s untiring effort to improve our knowledge is an inspiration to us all.

Why Does the Solar Cycle Keep Re-synchronizing Itself With the Gravitational Force of Jupiter That is Tangentially Pushing and Pulling Upon the Venus-Earth Tidal Bulge in the Sun’s Convective Layer?

Ian Wilson Phd (Astrophysics) April 2012

The Planetary Spin-Orbit Coupling Model outlined in the following posts:


is based upon the idea that the gravitational force of Jupiter
acts upon the Venus-Earth tidal bulge that periodically
forms in the convective layer of the Sun. The cumulative effects
of Jupiter’s gravitational force (acting on the tidally induced
asymmetry) produces a tidal torquing that systematically
slows and then speeds up the rotation rate of a thin shell of the
Sun’s convective zone. The model proposes that it is these
changes in rotation rate that modulate the level of activity of
the sunspot cycle and possibly produce the torsional oscillation
that are observed in the Sun’s convective layer.

The blue curve in figures 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d, shown below, is
the time-rate of change of the gravitational force of Jupiter,
tangential to the Sun’s surface, that acts upon the periodically
induced tidal bulge produced by the alignments of Venus and the
Earth every 1.599 years. The brown curve is simply the 1,2,1
binomial filtered version of the blue curve. Superimposed on
each of these figures are green vertical lines showing the dates
of solar minimum.

Figure 1a shows the period from 1740 to 1820, figure 1b the
period from 1810 to 1890, figure 1c the period from 1880 to
1960, and figure 1d the period from 1950 to 2030. The cycle
number for each solar sunspot cycle is displayed in each of the

Note: The vertical axis is the time-rate of change of the
gravitational force of Jupiter, acting tangential to the Sun’s
surface, that pulls and pushes upon the periodically induced
tidal bulge produced by the alignments of Venus and the Earth.
The units are metres per second^(2) per 1.599 years and it is
assumed that Jupiter’s gravitational force is acting upon one
percent of the mass of the convective layer of the Sun
(=0.0002 % of the mass of the Sun).

 Figure 1a

Figure 1b

 Figure 1c
 Figure 1d
Collectively, figures 1a  to 1d can be used to establish
two very important rules:
In all but two cases between 1750 and 2030, 
the time of a solar minimum is tightly synchronized 
with time that the change in the gravitational force 
of Jupiter, acting tangentially on the Venus-Earth 
tidal bulge, is a minimum.   

The two exceptions to this rule, are the minima at
the start of cycle 4 (see figure 1a) and cycle 23
(see figure 1d). In each case there is a clear loss
of synchronization between the rate of change of
Jupiter’s tangential acceleration and the timing of
the first minimum for that solar cycle. The loss of
synchronization is in the sense that the sunspot
minimum takes place more than ~ 3 years earlier
than the zero point in the change in Jupiter’s
tangential acceleration.

The thing that makes cycles 4 and 23 stand out
from all the other sunspot cycles is the fact that
they are the longest sunspot cycles between 1750
and 2012, with cycle 4 lasting 13.7 years and
cycle 23 lasting 13.4 years. Additionally, both
of these cycles were long lasting because the decay
of each from their respective maximum sunspot
number was considerably longer than normal.

It also important to note that Cycle 4 was followed
by a two weak solar cycles (cycles 5 and 6) known
as the the Dalton Minimum. Many now believe that
the same thing is happening again with Cycles 24
and perhaps cycle 25 being historically weaker than

Note: There is a weak loss of synchronization for
the first minima of cycles 14, 15 and 16, with
re-synchronization occurring for the first minimum
of cycle 17. This corresponds with a series of
weak solar cycles which is sometimes called the
Victorian minimum.


On the two occasions where synchronization is
significantly disrupted ( > 3 years – at the start 
of cycles 4 and 23), the timing of the first sunspot 
minimum of the next cycle immediately 
re-synchronizes with the timing of the minimum 
change in Jupiter’s tangential force acting upon
Venus-Earth tidal bulge.

This raises the important question:

Why does the Solar sunspot cycle re-synchronize itself
with the gravitational force of Jupiter that is tangentially
pushing and pulling upon the Venus-Earth tidal bulge in
the Sun’s convective layer?

The simplest explanation is that tidal torquing of Jupiter
upon the Venus-Earth tidal bulge must play a role in
determining the long-term changes in the overall level of
activity of the sunspot cycle.

Ian’s original article is  at this link

  1. tallbloke says:

    Tying in Ian’s tidal observations with observations of the Sun’s motion with respect to the solar system barycentre, at both the epochs where synchronisation is lost, the barycentre-solar core distance is around 0.9-1.1r for an exceptionally long time, as noted by Landscheidt in his 1988 book Sun-Earth-Man.

    This leads me to believe that both tidal and barycentric considerations need to be integrated for better understanding of the possible effect of planetary motion on the variation of solar activity levels.

  2. tallbloke says:

    Another point worth noting is that both of the epochs also coincide with times when the sum of the planetary mass is, on a 24 year average, lying near to it maximum deviation above the solar equator towards the Sun’s north pole. This is one of the reasons for my interest in the z axis and hemispheric sunspot production asymmetry.

  3. James says:

    I just love your blog Tallboke, you visit places where the mainstream do not go.

  4. tallbloke says:

    James: I take a lot of stick for it, but unless somebody flags up the areas they are failing to face real evidence on, their complacency will suffocate science.

  5. Ulric Lyons says:

    Looking at this from the positions of the maximum in each cycle (there is more variation in length between solar cycle maximum`s), both SC3 and SC4 maxima are running very early compared to the tightest Ju/Ea/Ve syzygies. About 5yrs early for SC3 and SC4, and about 3yrs early for SC23. No doubt the other three Jovian`s regularly play a major role in determining the absolute placement of maxima and minima too.

  6. Ninderthana says:


    Thanks for taking an interest in my post. What I am trying to do is to take a very simple idea and see how far it can be pushed to describe a linkage between planetary orientations and the solar cycle.

    The tidal-torquing model that I investigate is a bare-bones model that hypothesizes that there is a physical process that is synchronized with the planetary motions that is influencing the level of sunspot activity. It does not preclude the possibility that other factors (e.g. electromagnetic effects) besides gravity might play a role in this linkage, however, the model is primarily designed to investigate if gravity/tides play a significant role.

    The model is based upon the premise that the gravitational force of Jupiter
    acts upon the Venus-Earth tidal bulge that periodically forms in the convective layer of the Sun. The cumulative effects of Jupiter’s gravitational force (acting on the tidally induced
    asymmetry) produces a tidal torquing that systematically slows and then speeds up the rotation rate of a thin shell of the Sun’s convective zone. The model proposes that it is these
    changes in rotation rate that modulate the level of activity of the sunspot cycle and possibly produce the torsional oscillation that are observed in the Sun’s convective layer.

    Given that I (along with many other authors) have shown that the orbital motions of Venus, the Earth and Jupiter are intimately tied into the collective motions of the Jovian planets, this model masquerades as a spin-orbit coupling model. However, it is not a spin-orbit coupling model in the classical sense, since the variations in the spin-rate of the convective layers of the Sun are being driven by the tidal torquing of Jupiter upon the Venus-Earth tidal bulge, while the
    motion of the Sun around the Solar System’s barycentre is being driven by the collective motions of the Jovian planets. Hence, it only the connection between the motions of Venus-Earth-Jupiter
    and the collective motions of the Jovian planets that make it look like the surface rotation rate of the Sun is linked to the orbital motion of the Sun about the barycentre.

  7. tallbloke says:

    Hi Ian and Ulric.
    I need to compare the configurations of the jovians at the two epochs where the synchronisation is lost, and which coincide with the two longest periods where the solar surface is within 0.1r of the barycentre. Certainly I agree that there is no obvious physical reason why the barycentre’s proximity to the surface should have a particular effect. More that as a correlated symptom, it is inviting us to more closely examine the orbital relationships between the jovians which can bring about that state of affairs. I’m sure the z axis shouldn’t be neglected in that consideration.

    I see great merit in Ian’s approach of whittling the complex behaviour down to ‘bare bones’ synchronisations which obey simple heuristic rules. It is another piece of ‘in your face’ evidence of the reality of the solar planetary-solar relationships.

    Too many times I’ve witnessed Leif Svalgaard blatantly mischaracterise the JEV cycles as ‘gradually slipping past’ the solar cycles. This piece of work puts the lie to that misdirection in a clear and succinct way.

  8. Gerry says:

    Ninderthana and Tallbloke,

    I agree that there may be some fundamental heuristic rules for synchronization/desynchronization of solar surface torques to sunspot minima with respect to the time rate of change of Jovian tangential forces on Venus-Earth tidal bulges.

    It would help visualization and analysis of the process with respect to time if major vertical gridlines at five year intervals were added to the plots. It might also be interesting to add a plot of the rate of change of Saturn’s tangential forces on the Venus-Earth tidal bulges, in order to examine possible influences of second-order magnitude.

  9. Fascinating, thank you.

    Reminds me of a good parent with children. Sure, they wander – but eventually they come back into line – and with good parenting, this goes by something like natural cycles and rhythms rather than sudden angry coercion.

    Do I get the feeling that we are witnessing another moment like when Nikolov and Zeller appeared, that finally, even though details are unresolved, the “in your face” evidence is too strong to deny, for those who have worked on themselves to attune their gut instincts and intuitions to acceptable scientific methodology and proper use of statistics?

    Eppur si muove. Moves in statistically significant cycles, if I understand right, corresponding in scientifically possible ways (the different pulls of VEJ and JSUN if I understand right) to scientifically known laws and facts (gravitation and tides) – even though the exact mechanism is as yet unclear and the most obvious mechanisms don’t seem to apply.

    Would it be helpful in resolving the times of loss of synch, to see plotted against this (a) the distance of the SSB from the Sun’s centre / surface (b) the angular momentum of the Sun around the SSB (c) angular acceleration ditto?

  10. Gerry says:

    On second thought, perhaps it would make more sense to add a plot of the rate of change of Saturn’s tangential forces on Jupiter’s solar surface tidal bulges?

  11. tallbloke says:

    A bit tangential (sorry) to the topic, but I’ve been reading around some stuff this morning on intrinsic dimension, Hausdorff dimensions of fractals, Menger sponges and Sierpinsky curves. I have a sneaking suspicion it’s going to turn out to be relevant to orbital spacings and Kotov’s treatment of Bode’s law, and maybe much else including the transmission of force through the ‘quantum vacuum’ or as it used to be known, ‘the Aether’.

    Anyway, here’s some eye candy for nerds who like to consider the structure of Euclidean space. 🙂


  12. Joe Lalonde says:


    In models density differences are of no consequence and hence ignored.
    Many times we hear of a significant activity of plate tectonics that have “shifted” our axis.
    This statement is TOTALLY INCORRECT!
    Our axis starts deep down into the dense core of our planet and our shell is floating on a liquid medium.
    The shell of our planet has shifted and NOT our axis is a more correct assessment.

    So this begs to differ of the other planets?

  13. Richard111 says:

    Oh lordy me. I went and looked! Now my brain is even more addled.

  14. Ulric Lyons says:

    “On the two occasions where synchronization is
    significantly disrupted ( > 3 years – at the start
    of cycles 4 and 23), the timing of the first sunspot
    minimum of the next cycle immediately
    re-synchronizes with the timing of the minimum
    change in Jupiter’s tangential force acting upon
    Venus-Earth tidal bulge.”

    It seems that the minimum at the start of SC23 was less than 2yrs early, similar to the start of SC3,

  15. A. C. Osborn says:

    I love this forum, but what I find sad is that real scientists have done brilliant work on the solar system dynamics but they seem to be ignored by mainstream science, whereas lying, cheating AGW promoters get lots of publicity and cash.
    It is a sad day for the state of science in the world.

  16. Rog, I would like to send you a copy of “A Little Book of Coincidence” because that is not only the most amazing tiny book I’ve ever seen, it takes Kepler’s search for cosmic harmonies to a new level of sheer beauty and mathematical, geometrical exactitude. It would be nice to see material from this book here.

    From Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice

    …Look how the floor of heaven
    Is thick inlaid with patines of bright gold:
    There’s not the smallest orb which thou behold’st
    But in his motion like an angel sings,
    Still quiring to the young-eyed cherubins;
    Such harmony is in immortal souls;
    But, whilst this muddy vesture of decay
    Doth grossly close it in, we cannot hear it.

    This sense of cosmic harmonies is surely what people here have, intuiting that the harmonies can be found even in the astrophysics, and following all the leads – but Anthony, Willis and Leif lack that sixth sense and all they can see is muddy “transcendental rants”. From this perspective, it’s their loss.

    Anyway, the little Book of Coincidences makes the harmony and therefore interconnectedness of the members of the Solar System – well, statistically undeniable imho. Please email me your address.

  17. tallbloke says:

    Lucy: On your recommendation last year, I bought a copy. 🙂

    Indeed it has some nice if somewhat disconnected gems in it. I’m going to get it out and have another look – thanks for the reminder.

    I’m honestly puzzled by the attitude of Leif towards open research into stuff we can’t yet determine. It’s as if he wants to avoid the inevitable questions about the correctness (haha!) of the mainstream ‘Big Picture’ in cosmology. There is so much falsifying evidence now, it must be a strain to carry on stoically defending the indefensible. The more I’m delving into it, the further back I’m finding the schism goes between the ‘mathematical cosmology’ and the ‘classical mechanical’ cosmology’ in terms of the emphases the proponents of these two schools place on various phenomena and methodologies.

    It goes all the way back to Newton and Nicolas Fatio, and beyond them, ultimately to Aristotle and Plato. There is an essential tension between the schools, necessary to the progress of knowledge. The platonist school which emphasises proportion, cyclicity, harmonics and resonances needs the Arostotelian school with its emphases on taxonomy, measurement, and systematics. There is much subtle crossover, and tendency to one or the other depends as much on temperament as phiosophical logic or reason.

  18. Ulric Lyons says:

    A critical aspect of understanding solar cycle length, is that astronomically, some Hale cycles are 13 Venus synodic periods long, and some are 15 long. The correlations between the longer ones, and colder episodes is very interesting.

  19. pyromancer76 says:

    I emphasize to myself: Correlation is not Causation. I respect Lief Svalgaard’s expertise; however he lives at Stanford, one of the California universities that are the top contributors to the Obama relection campaign. (They also contributed heavily in 2008. In my opinion no institutions of higher education should be permitted to contribute to “politics”.) Obama’s administration has been the most committed to CAGW, the IPCC, the UN, Kyoto, Rio, (Agenda 21?), etc. Where do all the grants come from that enable Stanford scientists’ research?

    I very much respect Leif’s tough “show the mechanism/physics” of each claim, but his blinders-on repetition that only TSI counts, and since “it” is so tiny, the sun cannot affect or effect “climate change” on Earth is a bit much. Furthermore, the Sun is so large, the itty bitty planets can have only a miniscule effect on its processes. There is something fishy about the wall erected against scientific inquiry.

    Thanks to Tallbloke for making intelligent conversation possible in these and other areas.

  20. Gerry says:

    If the desynchronization “trigger” is, in fact, only associated with solar cycles equal to or longer than 13 years, then Jupiter synodic cycles with respect to Venus, Earth, and Mars seem to play leading roles. In http://www.jupitersdance.com/thefinalwaltz/
    there is an interesting plot by Timo Niroma of the distribution of solar cycle lengths related to the synodic periods of those planets. It is seen that Jupiter-Venus synodic cycles are related to 13.0 and 13.6 year solar cycles, Jupiter-Earth to 13.1 year solar cycles and Jupiter-Mars infrequently to a 13.3 year solar cycle.

    1785 was the year identified as the time of solar cycle/Jupiter-Earth-Venus synodic period desychronization preceding the Dalton Minimum. On March 11, 1785 there was a Jupiter-Sun-Earth syzygy with Mars and Mercury near quadrature, with a Saturn-Sun-Venus syzygy on the same day! Then, on April 12, 1785, there was a Jupiter-Sun-Venus syzygy with Mercury at quadrature. In accordance with the Jupiter tangential Earth-Venus-Sun pull model, there was an Earth-Venus-Sun conjunction on May 5, 1785, with Jupiter near quadrature.

    1997 was identified by Ian as the recent time of desynchronization. On January 22, 1997 there was a Jupiter-Sun-Earth syzygy, with Saturn and Mercury near quadrature. A Saturn-Sun-Mercury syzygy had occurred only three days earlier. Then, on February 16, 1997, there was a conjunction of Jupiter, Venus, and the Sun, with Saturn and Mercury at quadrature! Early 1997 also saw Uranus and Neptune hanging out near the ecliptic longitude of Jupiter. Last, but perhaps not least, there was an Earth-Sun-Venus syzygy on April 5, 1997, with Uranus, Jupiter and Mercury aligned near quadrature!

    The above 1785 and 1997 planetary configurations can be easily visualized using

    Trying to unravel exactly what may have happened in 1785 and 1997 is not easy, but it is easy to understand why most mainstream astronomers are not interested in dynamical effects involving alignments and synodic cycles of planets. This is customarily considered to be in the realm of astrology, a superstition that can be the kiss of career death to professional astronomers accused of superstitious belief through association. I myself officially changed in 1965 from a potential lifetime career in astronomy to one in aerospace astrodynamic engineering. I’ve been fully retired now for 12 years, and am learning how to comfortably deal with the over-specialized critics of those of us who dare to delve into heretical areas.

    G.E. Pease

  21. tallbloke says:

    Thanks for that analysis Gerry, very helpful. So, plenty of action at ‘magnetic angles’ (as Ulric calls them) to get the new cycle kick-started early. And kill the old one early, apparently.

  22. Ninderthana says:


    The first minimum for SC 23 occurred at 1996.5 (June 1996) while the zero acceleration took place at 1999.7 (20/08/1999), which is ~ 3.0 yrs.

    However, I have corrected one error in my first post. The first minimum for SC 24 took place 2008.9 (December 2008) while the zero acceleration occurred at 2010.8. Hence, I am not correct in saying that (in the case of the SC 23 loss of synchronization) the re-synchronization has been fully completed by the start of the next cycle (SC 24). It will be interesting to see if full re-synchronization takes by 2021.

  23. Ninderthana says:

    An interesting point to note:

    The first solar minimum in the telescope era was the first minimum for Cycle -12 starting 1610.8,
    The corresponding zero acceleration was in ~ 1611.5 (a difference of 0.8 years, which is probably
    about the size of the errors involved in setting the date of this minimum)

    This means that by ~ 2021 there have been 37 VEJ cycles each of 11.07 years length.

    1611.5 + (37 x 11.07) = 2021.1

    Hence, if solar cycle 25 has its first minimum in the start of 2021, it will show that solar cycle
    has re-synchronized itself to a 11.07 year period VEJ cycle over a ~ 410 year period.

    If the first minimum of cycle 25 occurs in the start of 2019, it will show that solar cycle
    has re-synchronized itself to a 11.02 year period VEJ cycle over a ~ 410 year period,

    1611.5 + (37 x 11.02) = 2019.24

    If the first minimum of cycle 25 occurs at the beginning of 2023, it will show that solar cycle
    has re-synchronized itself to a 11.12 year period VEJ cycle over a ~ 410 year period,

    1611.5 + (37 x 11.12) = 2022.94

    Thus, a first minimum for SC 25 that occurs between 2019.24 and 2022.94 (i.e. ~ 2021 +/- 2 years) will indicate a re-synchronization to a VEJ cycle length of 11.07 +/- 0.05 years over a 410 year period.

  24. Ninderthana says:


    I have posted a followup here:


    to my earlier post showing the how the V-E-J Tidal-torquing model [This is the best way to describe it] produces a loss of synchronizations at both the start and end years of the hiatus in sunspot cycle know as the Maunder Minimum.

  25. Gerry says:

    Another great post by Ninderthana:

    Amazing indeed! I’m very pleased that the initial conditions preceding the Maunder Minuimum are
    being examined. Also, revisiting Vukcevic’s overlay of Ed Fix’s orange signed cycle plot on my barycentric orbital angular momentum 1590-1700/1948-2058 plots,
    I notice that a cycle slippage appears to have been initiated in 2005, with solar cycle phase lock to barycentric angular momentum re-established in 2014. No subsequent loss of phase lock up to 2058 is projected in these plots. Also, no significant loss of phase lock is seen in the three plots encompassing 1948 to 2005 and 1590 to 1647.

  26. Gray says:


    Very interesting study and the data back to the Maunder is compelling.

    Any thoughts on why the sunspot cycle starts at a higher solar latitude? I’m wondering if initially the JEV effect creates a bigger tidal differential at the slower moving lattitudes than it does at the faster moving equator.

  27. Ninderthana says:


    I am aware that you are familiar with most of the following but I just taking the opportunity to think out aloud.

    I think that an equally interesting question is why there are no sunspots in the +/- 5 degrees
    region either side of the Sun’s equator (if you look at the Butterfly Diagram you will see that the flow of sunspots never reaches the Sun’s equator)? It might have something to do with the Sun’s axis which is tilted by ~ 7 degrees with respect to the plane-of-the-ecliptic, but I would suspect that the Sun’s tilt with respect to Jupiter’s orbit is probably more pertinent in this case.

    The butterfly diagram is formed when a deviation in the Sun’s differential rotation rate (known as a torsional oscillations) starts propagating towards both the equator and the poles from a latitude of about +/- 50 degrees latitude. The Sunspots (and the magnetic field) comes to the Sun’s surface just ahead of these torsional oscillations. The solar experts believe that a meridional (North-South) flow is responsible for the slow drift of the sunspots towards the equator.

    Just a few thoughts.

  28. Ulric Lyons says:

    @Ninderthana says:
    April 24, 2012 at 12:34 am

    “The first minimum for SC 23 occurred at 1996.5 (June 1996) while the zero acceleration took place at 1999.7 (20/08/1999), which is ~ 3.0 yrs.”

    1999.7 is way past the middle of your peak tides of 30.03.1993 and 21.08.2003, early Dec 1997 is more sensible.

  29. Ulric Lyons says:

    Another problem with this is that around solar minimum, proposed peak EV tides by definition (at syzygy) have to be nearer to 45 or 135 degrees and never tangential to Ju. An EV “tidal bulge” can only be tangential to Ju around solar maximum.

  30. Joe Lalonde says:


    You want an addled brain?
    Try being in my head!
    It took quite awhile to distinguish being “bull s…ed” to being informed by our experts we put our faith in being absolutely correct.
    Very few people want changes to the current knowledge base which is full of errors and ignorance that no one wants to clean up.
    This is why it is far easier to claim “uncertainty” than being informed and errors brought out into the open.

  31. Ninderthana says:


    1. The rotation rate of the Sun is ~ 25 – 27 days near the equatorial regions of the
    Sun. This compares with an orbital period (with respect to the stars) of 224.70069
    days for Venus and 365.256363 days for the Earth i.e. the rotation rate (~ 26 days)
    is ~ 9 – 14 times the planetary orbital rates. This means that the Sun’s rotation will
    drag any planetary tidal bulge a few degrees ahead of the line connecting the Sun
    and the planets. However, I think that the plasma viscosity would be large enough
    that the tidal bulges on the surface of the Sun would not be too far ahead of the
    planet-Sun line.

    2. Taking the solar minimum in September 1986 as an example. The RATE OF CHANGE
    in the acceleration of the VE tidal bulges Sun’s surface caused by the Jupiter’s gravitational
    force acting on these tidal bulges should be roughly zero when the Jupiter is roughly 45
    degrees ahead or behind one of the two induced tidal bulges on the Sun.

    The nearest syzygy of Venus and Earth is the 04th November 1986. On this date, Jupiter
    is 49.6 degrees behind (in a retrograde direction) the near side tidal bulge on the Sun.
    This is exactly what you would expect.

    A zero RATE OF CHANGE in Jupiter’s gravitational acceleration of the combined tidal
    bulges of VE always takes place around the time when this acceleration peaks in
    absolute value. This occurs when Jupiter is 45 degrees ahead or behind one of the
    induced tidal bulges.

    Note: The planets always induce two tidal bulges on either side of the Sun.

  32. Ninderthana says:


    Please look at the graph/figure in this post:


    The tangential acceleration of the Sun’s surface that is caused by Jupiter’s gravitational force reaches a maximum when Jupiter is ~ +/- 45 degrees (or +/- 135 degrees) to the line joining the Sun-Venus and the Earth. Its at this point that RATE OF CHANGE of the acceleration is zero.

  33. Ninderthana says:


    In the introduction you say:

    “Although Ian ‘frames no hypotheses’ regarding the physical mechanism(s) underlying the connection between solar variation and planetary motion.”

    Actually, I do propose a physical mechanism, however, it requires ~ 1 % of the mass
    of the convective zone of the Sun to be dynamically de-coupled from the rest of the Sun’s mass.

  34. Ulric Lyons says:

    Ninderthana says:
    April 24, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    OK I`m following what you are saying now. So why would the rate of change more important than them being parallel or tangential ?

    p.s. the syzygy in 1987 is closer to 45deg.

  35. Ninderthana says:

    Thanks for sticking with me Ulric. Some times my explanations are as clear as mud.

    The acceleration that I am talking about is the vector component of Jupiter’s gravitational force that is tangential to the surface of the Sun at the location of the Venus-Earth tidal bulges.

    I hope that is a little more transparent.

  36. Ninderthana says:


    And of course, I am claiming that the solar minimum is synchronizing with the time rate of change (i.e derivative) of the acceleration described in the previous post.

  37. Joe Lalonde says:


    I understand what you are trying to get at.
    Their is vast distance differences along with velocity differences.
    I have not had the time yet to map the sun’s velocity differences along with the other planets velocity differences.
    But here is a sample from what I have mapped by way of our planet that shows the vast differences of an orbs velocities.