Miles Mathis: The Cause of the Solar Cycle

Posted: September 8, 2014 by tallbloke in Astrophysics, Celestial Mechanics, Cycles, solar system dynamics

One of the advantages of being billed by the most self important climate discussion website in the world as being a purveyor of ‘way out there theory’, is that I can publish whatever I like with no risk of further reputational damage. So when Stuart (Oldbrew) spotted that Miles Mathis has written a paper inspired by the same NASA material we have been discussing recently, I thought, why the hell not? Miles has been developing his ideas about a fundamental photon charge field underlying observed electro-magnetic phenomena for several years now, and has built up quite a corpus of work. This makes it difficult to absorb his stuff without clicking through to read his previous papers, and you soon find yourself in a labyrinth of ‘too many tabs’ open in your browser. Nonetheless, he is always entertaining, and thought provoking, even if it will be a while before we can see whether the predictions he makes based on his theory turn out to be correct. At least he has the guts to make definite predictions in the first place. None of your mealy mouthed ‘may’, ‘could’ and ‘perhaps’ ‘narrative scenario projections’ with Miles. He shoots fro the hip. Good lad. 🙂

mathis-sc-title

First published September 6, 2014

One of my readers sent me a link to wonderful new data from NASA. Although NASA and the rest of
the mainstream are not so good when it comes to theory, they are quite adept at compiling data, so I
have to thank them in this case. Without their numbers I could do nothing.

It has been known for a long time that the main Solar cycle is about 11 years, but that is just an
average. It goes from a minimum of about 9 years up to about 14 years. Although some theories have
been presented, the cause of all three numbers is unknown. I will show you the correct answer here.
The reason I so quickly hit on the right answer is that I knew where to look. In my other long paper on
Sun cycles (ice ages), I have already shown that Jupiter is the cause of the secondary variance. In this
case we will see that Jupiter is the cause of the primary variance.

Upon reading the NASA data, Jupiter
is the first place I looked. The NASA writers even give us a hidden clue, though it is doubtful anyone
but me tripped over it. They say,

The team found magnetic parcels in sizes that had been seen before, but also spotted much larger parcels than
those previously noted — about the diameter of Jupiter.

Even I didn’t get the message the first time I read that. It took a second reading. The first time you
read that, you just think the parcels accidentally match the size of Jupiter. You can’t see any physical
reason Jupiter would be projecting his image onto the Sun, so you don’t go there. You just keep
reading. This is the same reason the mainstream doesn’t think to look at Jupiter as the cause of the 11-
year cycle. Given mainstream theory, there doesn’t seem to be any physical way that Jupiter could be
causing the magnetic cycles of the Sun, so no one goes there. To them, Jupiter affecting Solar cycles
smacks of astrology, so instead they look for the answer in the Solar interior.

I will pause to confirm that my theory of charge influence is completely physical, and has nothing to do
with paranormal or mystical causes. In fact, it is much more mechanical than what normally passes for
physics these days. It is known that celestial bodies have prominent E/M fields, and the charge field
simply underlies and causes these E/M fields, just as it does at the quantum level and in Maxwell’s
equations. What the mainstream doesn’t understand is that the local magnetism of Jupiter, say, doesn’t
have to travel from there to the Sun in order to cause the Solar magnetic responses and cycles. So what
we are seeing isn’t strictly a magnetic transference through space. What we are seeing is a charge
transference through space which then causes a magnetic reaction on the Sun. What is traveling
between the bodies is real photons with real field densities and real spins. These photons can then
cause various E/M effects once they hit large bodies that are composed of ions or ion fields.

But back to the problem at hand. That passing mention of Jupiter finally jogged something in my head,
and it was so simple it made me laugh. What is the orbital period of Jupiter? 11.862 years. Ho-ho!
So why isn’t the Solar cycle exactly 11.862 years? Because Jupiter isn’t the only cause. To calculate
the cycle in any given year, we have to track all four of the Jovians (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and
Neptune). Basically, when Jupiter and Saturn are on the same side of the Sun, their E/M fields stack,
giving us a maximum. When Jupiter and Saturn are opposite, we should get a minimum. The full
maximum would be when all four Jovians are on the same side of the Sun.

Do we have any other evidence for this? We do. The great conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn take
place every 18-20 years. If we return to the NASA paper, we find
This process, from migratory start to finish at the equator takes 19 years on average, but is seen to vary from 16 to
about 21 years.

We have a match: an average of 19 years in both places.

I have to imagine someone has seen these number matches and proposed an influence from Jupiter.
But they probably got bogged down in the field mechanics pretty quickly and couldn’t make it work.
They therefore gave up or tried more esoteric solutions. But if you have my unified field equations,
you find the calculations are all well-oiled from the beginning. We will find no sticky spots.

And we have much more evidence, indicating we are on the right track before we even do any math. If
we return to my papers of the past five or six years, we find this diagram many times:

charge field

I used that diagram to show how a spinning sphere recycling photons would naturally pull in charge at
the poles and emit them most heavily at 30 degrees north and south. I then used that necessary field
phenomenon to explain the Earth’s tropics, the Equatorial Anomaly, Plate Tectonics, and this NOAA
diagram:

earth-LW

 

This charge recycling theory immediately explains the limit at 30 degrees they are finding in the
sunspot motion. The Sun isn’t creating an E/M field in its core or body, by some nuclear means, as the
mainstream believes. The Sun is recycling a greater charge field coming in from the galactic core and
the surrounding galactic field. It is taking that field in at its poles and re-emitting it nearer the equator.
From there, it travels out on the Solar plane to all the planets, where it is recycled by them in turn. A
sort of circuit is then created, and the charge returns from the planets back to the Sun.

In other words, they are seeing clear evidence here of a charge or magnetic feedback loop from the
large planets (or all the planets, but mainly the big four). This is so obvious, I have to think they are
suppressing the information on purpose, once again to protect their pet theories. They can’t admit the
obvious here, because it would be (and already is) the final nail in the coffin of their gravity-only
theory. They have to pretend not to remember that the orbital period of Jupiter is 11.862 years,
pointing at the Solar cycle, and that the great conjunction is about 19 years, since if they start along that
path they will very soon come to a point where they have to admit I was right all along. Eventually
they will end up where I have already been for years: with a working unified field in the Solar System
that is capable of explaining the mechanics (and generating the equations) beneath Bode’s Law, all the
axial tilts, the eccentricities, the albedoes, magnetic reconnection, the Coriolis Effect, Lagrange points,
and on and on.

So, I have already shown you where the main numbers are coming from. It would be a miracle if I
were able to explain the other main numbers in the article that easily, right? Well, if I were just lucking
onto these numbers by coincidence, it would have to be a miracle if I were able to explain the 55
degree latitude of bright spot and g-node arrival. But of course it isn’t a miracle, since the reason I am
able to calculate these numbers so easily is that I am existing in the correct field theory. I will now
prove that.

The red and blue bands in the NASA video are born at about 55 degrees north and south. That is 55 out
of 90, which is 61.1% of the way from equator to pole. As a fraction, that comes out to about 1/1.637.
If Jupiter and Saturn are indeed the main players here, I should be able to calculate that number straight
from those two bodies. We start with the charge strengths of the two bodies, which I have shown can
be calculated from their mass and density. So we can use the numbers from my Bode paper, where I
showed that Jupiter recycles 6.445 times as much charge as Saturn. We get relative charge strength
from mass times density. See previous papers for more on that logic. But Saturn is 1.84 times as far
away. Since charge density increases as it comes back toward the Sun, Saturn’s charge will increase
more than Jupiter’s. This is one of the most important things I discovered in my previous papers and
calculations, and although it is logical on a close look at the field mechanics, it wouldn’t be expected in
a cursory mathematical analysis. That is why it is so important. This brings Jupiter’s charge influence
down to 3.5 times that of Saturn.

But let’s bring Uranus and Neptune into this, just to see their effects. Jupiter has 22.84 times the charge
of Uranus and 15 times as much charge as Neptune. But Uranus is 3.68 times further away, and
Neptune is 5.78 times further away. So Uranus’ effect at the Sun is 1/6.2 that of Jupiter, and Neptune’s
is 1/2.6.

Good lord! That means Neptune’s influence on this cycle is actually greater than Saturn’s, as a matter
of strength. This forces us to bring Neptune into the main mix. Neptune conjoins with Jupiter every
12-13 years, and Saturn conjoins to Jupiter every 18-20 years.

So, using these numbers, let’s look at greatest maximum and greatest minimum. If we give Jupiter a
charge strength of 1, and let all four Jovians be in conjunction, we would have a total incoming charge
of 1.83. By the same token, the greatest minimum would be 1 – .83 = .17. However, NASA isn’t seeing
that differential, since the time period is very great. In mapping their colored bands, they aren’t
mapping periods that long. They are only mapping the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction and the
Jupiter/Neptune conjunction. If we take just the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction, we see that is rocking only
from 1.286 [1 + 1/3.5] to .714 [1 – 1/3.5].

We have to then ask, how does that rocking between the two planets fit into the four planet feedback?
To find out, we just divide 1.83 by 1.286. That tells us that the Jupiter/Saturn rocking is .7 the total
possible rocking. Now, if we assign greatest maximum (full conjunction) to 90 degrees and greatest
minimum to 0 degrees, we can calculate a solution here. So if we could just isolate the Jupiter/Saturn
rocking, we would expect the bands to phase in at about .7 x 90 = 63 degrees.

If you aren’t clear on what I did there, I assumed these bands we are seeing are feedback bands, created
by the looped field on the surface of the sphere. We are seeing a sort of magnetic reconnection from
the Jovians, but the created circuit is having to stack on the existing field of the Sun. In other words,
we have the looped field created by charge returning from the planets, but the Sun is also constantly
recycling a new field coming in from the galactic core. So the looped field from the planets has to
stack on the main field. If the looped field from the planets was all coming in from the same direction,
the Sun would just add it to the main field by pulling it in at the poles, same as it does with the main
field. But since the looped field is coming in from staggered planets on opposite sides, we get
inference. This interference drives the bands down the surface, away from the poles. Full interference
would drive it toward the equator, where it would completely interfere with emitted charge and and
disappear. By the same token, zero interference would keep it near the poles. Therefore, if all four
Jovians were in conjunction, their looped charge would just return in a line and go straight to the poles.
In that case we wouldn’t see the bands at all.

So why do we see 55 degrees right now instead of 63 degrees? Because we have so far failed to take
Neptune into account. Remember, Neptune has more charge strength (density) in this problem than
Saturn. So we can never isolate the Jupiter/Saturn influence. We always have to check where Neptune
is.

To finish off the math, and prove it is correct, I will back-calculate the necessary position of Neptune
here without knowing what it is beforehand. I hope you can see how easy that is to do. I calculated 63
degrees as .7 of 90, but we need to find .611 of 90 in order to get 55 degrees. So we just go back and
look at how we got .7. That was from dividing 1.286 by 1.83. So to get .611, we need to divide x by
1.83. In that case, x = 1.12. Now we just need to work that into the Jupiter/Saturn mix, which we
represented by this term [1 + 1/3.5]. So we just extend that equation to find what we need:

[1 + 1/3.5 + y] = 1.12
You see, y is then the influence of Neptune on Jupiter/Saturn.
y = -.166

But we already found the normal influence of Neptune is +1/2.6. So Neptune must be in a position in
this problem where he is supplying only 43% of his maximum influence. Since his maximum
influence is at conjunction, and his minimum influence is at opposition, he must be at some angle to the
Jupiter/Saturn conjunction. And since his influence is negative, he must be nearer opposition. Since
the cosine of 64.5 degrees is .43, we assume Neptune is somewhere near that angle to opposition in this
problem.

According to NASA’s video in that article, a band appeared at 55 degrees in about 2000, and there was
a great conjunction of Jupiter/Saturn in that year. At the end of the article, they tell us another is
expected in about 2020, and another great conjunction will be here at the end of 2020. So far that
confirms my analysis.

But where was Neptune in 2000? Well, in 2009, Neptune and Jupiter were in conjunction. So they
were also in conjunction in late 1996. This puts them in opposition in 2002-2003. In 1999, this puts
Neptune at about 90 degrees, moving toward opposition. In 2000, Neptune was between 60 and 70
degrees from opposition from Jupiter, which confirms my calculations.

Neptune’s conjunction with Jupiter in 2009 is confirmed again by NASA’s video in that article, since
we find another band appearing at 55 degrees in that year. But this band is red instead of blue. How
do we explain that? Although the long cycle is about 19-20 years, we have two half cycles with
reversed magnetism inside that. Why? Given my theory and field, wouldn’t we have to propose that
Neptune had the opposite magnetic field to Saturn to get that? We know that isn’t true. And that
wouldn’t explain it anyway, because Jupiter is still recycling more charge than either Saturn or
Neptune. To get the total to flip, Jupiter himself would have to flip, and we have no indication of that,
either.

Fortunately, our new unified field gives us a simple answer here as well. Although Jupiter’s magnetism
doesn’t flip locally, his position relative to the Sun does flip. In each half cycle, he is on the other side
of the Sun from where he was before. This matters, because remember, we are stacking our looped
planetary field on top of our main field. The Sun is getting most of his charge from the galactic core, in
some line snaking through the galaxy. Although this line of charge will also change, it changes over a
very long period, that period being determined by the Sun’s orbit of the core. So it doesn’t come into
these short-term calculations at all. We can treat it as fixed relative to this short-term math. If we take
this line of charge as coming from the direction of Sagittarius, then of course as Jupiter orbits the Sun
over its 12 year cycle, half the time it will be moving with that line and half the time it will be moving
against it. This means that the entire planetary influence we have calculated here will be opposing the
main charge field of the Sun half the time and augmenting it half the time. This is what causes the
apparent flip.

As I close, I will point out something else very important and make a prediction. I have shown you that
the charge influence of Neptune is much greater than anyone realizes, and that it is very close to that of
Saturn. If Saturn’s influence is 1, Neptune’s is 1.346, only about 1/3rd greater. So Neptune and Saturn
are acting almost as replacements for one another in this dance, which would confuse anyone that only
got halfway into this solution. Only my unified field allows me to sort through all this.

It also allows me to make a prediction. NASA pretends that predicting when the next Solar cycle ends
is a big deal, but I have shown you can calculate that straight from the next conjunction of
Jupiter/Saturn (plus the position of Neptune—you can include the position of Uranus, too, if you need
to be very exact). But a much more subtle prediction involves predicting something that no one even
knows is predictable—or even variable. That would be the angle 55 degrees. Although they don’t
admit it in their article, we can see that the angle can’t be the same for the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction as
the Jupiter/Neptune conjunction. All we have to do is return to the simple math. The angle for the blue
band must be found using the equation [1 + 1/3.5 + y], while the angle for the red band must be [1 +
1/2.6 + z], where z is the influence from an opposing Saturn. Therefore, in most cases, we would
expect the red band to arrive at a slightly higher angle than the blue band. The Jupiter/Neptune
conjunction gives us a baseline of 68 degrees where the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction gave us a baseline
of 63 degrees. To get the Jupiter/Neptune conjunction down to 55 degrees, Saturn has to quite near
opposition to their conjunction. If Saturn is at full opposition, the equation gives us 1.09 instead of
1.12, which would give us an angle of 53.6 degrees. But in most positions for Saturn, that equation
will give us angles above 55 degrees.

As a sort of addendum, I will go ahead and show exactly how to predict the cycles as well, for those
who don’t really follow me. To get us into this problem, we will go back to 2000, when the blue band
was appearing at 55 degrees south. If we study the video closely, we see the blue band appearing a bit
before 2000, possibly in 1999. It is hard to tell on the internet. Some might use that to argue against
my analysis, but it just means we have left Uranus out of the mix. Remember, my theory is that the
band arrives when the four Jovians are at a maximum. Well, that maximum probably won’t be exactly
when Jupiter conjoins with Saturn or Neptune. It must be near that time, but we wouldn’t expect it to
be exactly at that time. I haven’t yet checked the charts of Uranus, but I will predict that Uranus was in
a position in that period to pull the maximum back from 2000 to 1999. Take a beat while I search on
that.

Jupiter and Uranus last conjoined in 2010-11, and they are on a 27.5 year cycle. Therefore in 1997,
Uranus was in opposition to Jupiter. This puts Uranus at about 90 degrees in 2004, and at about 45
degrees from opposition in 2000. So in 2000, we find both Neptune and Uranus near opposition from
the conjoining Jupiter/Saturn. In 1999, Uranus is even nearer opposition, so that won’t help us. But we
have to look at where Neptune is in 1999 compared to 2000. We found above that Neptune was near
90 degrees, which helps us a lot. At 90 degrees, the magnetic effect in this problem is nullified.
Neptune goes to zero in that position, which allows the Jupiter/Saturn mix to maximize. Although
Jupiter/Saturn aren’t yet fully conjoined in 1999, they are close enough.
So even though Jupiter/Saturn aren’t fully conjoined in 1999, and although Uranus is near straight
opposition, having Neptune at 90 degrees is more important than either of those facts. At full
opposition, Uranus only subtracts .161 from the mix. Neptune in the same position would subtract .
385, or nearly two and a half times as much. So getting Neptune to 90 degrees is crucial for creating
the maximum here.

In the same way, the cycle maximum in 2020 will be determined by tracking not only the great
conjunction of Jupiter/Saturn, but of Neptune and Uranus as well. So where will Neptune and Uranus
be in December of 2020? Uranus hits opposition in 2024. In about 2018 he will be at 90 degrees. So
in 2020 he will be about 60 degrees from opposition. Neptune is much more important again, because
in this coming cycle he will be near conjunction like Saturn. The Jupiter/Neptune conjunction will be
in 2022, so Neptune will be less than 2 years away from his conjunction in 2000. Therefore, we would
expect the next maximum to be when the Jupiter/Saturn/Neptune trio is at a maximum. Since this is
the case, we would expect the cycle peak to be past December 2020, sometime in the year 2021.
Since the NASA article ends with this:

“People make their predictions for when this solar cycle will end and the next one will start,” said Leamon.
“Sometime in 2019 or 2020, some people will be proved right and others wrong.”

I predict all people predicting 2019 or 2020 will be wrong. The maximum won’t occur until 2021,
since the approaching Neptune will help the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction. Let’s do the math to prove it.

[Editorial note: Miles has mistaken a prediction of solar min for max here, and may edit this later]

[Inserted into paper by M.Mathis: N. B. When I say maximum, I mean the band maximum we are analyzing, not the Solar spot maximum or minimum. See below* for more on this.] (*meaning in the updated paper)

In 2020, Neptune will be at about 45 degrees from conjunction, which will give him a strength of .27.
Since Jupiter/Saturn will stack at 1.286, the trio will have a strength of 1.56. If we wait a couple of
years and bring Neptune into full conjunction, he and Jupiter will stack at 1.385. But Saturn will have
moved on. At that time, Saturn will be about 30 degrees away, giving it a strength of .247. So that will
give us an even bigger maximum [1.63] than the 2020 maximum of Jupiter/Saturn. So let us find one
more number, at the midway point of those two maxima. Let us put both planets about 15 degrees from
Jupiter. That gives us a total of 1.647. Since that is the largest number we have found, that will
indicate the true maximum. Without doing all the calculations, I would estimate that to happen in
around September of 2021.

So not only can I predict a delayed maximum, I can predict a very long maximum—as both Saturn and
then Neptune pass through their conjunctions with Jupiter. What will probably happen is that they will
report the next cycle arriving in late 2020, but that will turn out to be premature. So don’t pay any bets
early. The highest point of the maximum won’t arrive until many months after the first reports of it,
and the cycle will remain in this strange extended maximum for more than year and a half.

Comments
  1. Doug Proctor says:

    Love a prediction. I think that is what scientists used to do based on claiming to know what was going on.

    Predictions about when and how much the temps will go down (or up) would be interesting. Bet, though, the warmists couldn’t be paid to do so. Just the skeptics, and they’ll do it for free …

  2. Stephen Richards says:

    [Editorial note: Miles has mistaken a prediction of solar min for max here, and may edit this later]

    “So not only can I predict a delayed maximum, I can predict a very long maximum”

    Are you saying that the next min will be a long one ? not max?

  3. markstoval says:

    “One of the advantages of being billed by the most self important climate discussion website in the world as being a purveyor of ‘way out there theory’, is that I can publish whatever I like with no risk of further reputational damage.”

    I enjoyed that sentence immensely. But you could never damage a reputation publishing a real scientist making real predictions based on his novel new theory. After all, Albert Einstein was ‘way out there’ once upon a time. No?

    Anyway, thanks for the post.

  4. oldbrew says:

    Where does this leave angular momentum and tidal theories of solar-planetary interaction?

  5. This prediction is wrong. Already the heliospheric tilt angle is in a decline which marks the end of the maximum for a given solar cycle.

    So not only can I predict a delayed maximum, I can predict a very long maximum

    I just caught the error. I also think he meant very long minimum if so his prediction is correct.

  6. tallbloke says:

    Stephen R: I’m saying Miles mistook the prediction of 2020 by the other scientists as a prediction for the timing of solar max, when it is a prediction for solar min.

  7. tallbloke says:

    OB: Still where they were. All the forces we have looked at fit the solar timing in various ways, so for me, it’s “all of the above” until proven otherwise.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Salvatore: If Miles is right about max in sept 2021, then solar min preceding it will be around 2017-18

    However, my own reading of the Sun’s odd behaviour is that we may see a lull around 2017 but not a ‘proper’ minimum. That might be followed by a resurgence of activity, peaking as Miles says around mid 2021.

  9. I have to take back my last post. I think he is now saying the next maximum for the next cycle will be quite long and delayed.

  10. This is very confusing with his usage of maximum and minimum.

  11. Reblogged this on thedarklordblog and commented:
    Fascinating new insights into the workings of our Sun.

  12. .

    My own prediction is for cycle 24 to end around 2021 or 2022.

  13. Alan Poirier says:

    Interesting. Ran across Miles’s work a few weeks back. It’s an amalgam of electric sun and conventional solar physics. Sven thinks he’s amusing. I think he’s on to something. I so wish Carl were still alive.

  14. Eric Barnes says:

    Love your site as always Tallbloke and your sense of humor and humility place you above the crowd. Reminds me of a quote from Bertrand Russell…

    One of the symptoms of approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one’s work is terribly important and that to take a holiday would bring all kinds of disaster. If I were a medical man, I should prescribe a holiday to any patient who considered his work important.” [Bertrand Russell, The Conquest of Happiness (New York: Liveright Books, 1971), p. 61.]

    Perhaps it’s time AW went on vacation. 🙂 .

  15. Geoff Sharp says:

    An interesting theory put forward by Miles, and if I understand it correctly his use of the balance of magnetism from galactic and planetary sources corresponds with the torsional oscillation bands seen via doppler type readings of the solar surface. I see now Rachael Howe is saying these bands are no longer 17 years in duration and can vary substantially around this period.

    If the planetary forces are responsible for the torsional bands it should be very easy to test, it would just be a matter of producing a scatter plot of the residual magnetic forces on a weekly time scale and see if they compare with the doppler images of the Sun. I think we need to also remember the torsional bands overlap and are not the start or end of a typical sunspot cycle.

    http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/latest-solar-differential-rotation-information/

    Where the theory will struggle is the mechanism as I doubt there is any evidence of a single galactic stream of magnetism along with any evidence of a returning field from the planets. I am also not clear why the further the planet is from the Sun the greater the magnetic potential.

    I have spent a lot of time trying to see if there is any aligning pattern in Angular Momentum that may correlate with the doppler images, but so far have I found nothing….maybe I am not looking in the right area.

    My guess is that the torsional bands are generated at the Tachocline and are just a product of the fluid dynamics of the Sun in relation to its spin rate. The variance in torsional belts and subsequent solar cycles coming from a differing shear strength at the Tachocline, brought about by some form of either inner or outer layer spin rate change.

  16. tallbloke says:

    Hi Geoff and thanks for the comment.
    “Where the theory will struggle is the mechanism as I doubt there is any evidence of a single galactic stream of magnetism along with any evidence of a returning field from the planets.”

    Mathis doesn’t expect to see one. His theory concerns streams of photons which form a ‘fundamental charge field’ underlying the observed electro magnetic phenomena as I said in my intro. Basically, it’s an aether theory, but it is a well worked out aether theory, which Mathis has developed all the way down to sub-atomic level, with maths to back it up, and with plausible explanations of observed micro-physical phenomena. And the advantage of his theory is that it does form a ‘proper pool-ball mechanics’, rather than relying on ‘action at a distance’ standard gravitational theory. Einsteinian curved space provides no escape from this, as it merely shifts the question back a level. Instead of having to ask:
    “How can gravity act at a distance to ‘pull’ two pieces of matter towards each other?”, we have to ask:
    “How can gravity act at a distance to curve space-time?”. Hence the desperate (and expensive) search for a ‘graviton’.

    “I am also not clear why the further the planet is from the Sun the greater the magnetic potential.”

    I struggle with this one too. Mathis postulates the idea that the photon streams from the planets towards the Sun get ‘focused’ by the Sun’s outwardly radiating ‘field lines’. See his Bode’s law paper for more details. Stuart may know of a more recent paper where he has developed this idea further.

    “The variance in torsional belts and subsequent solar cycles coming from a differing shear strength at the Tachocline, brought about by some form of either inner or outer layer spin rate change.”

    Yes, the big question is, what induces those spin rate changes? Seeing that the standard theory is at a loss with the changing spin rates of Venus and Saturn, this remains an open question. I’m working on the idea that there is a spin orbit coupling between planets and between planets and the Sun, as evidenced in the observations (many of which were spotted by Stuart) laid out in my PRP papers.

  17. tallbloke says:

    Miles has got back to me by email on the confusion of maximum and minimum at the point I inserted an editorial note. He says:

    Well, we may be using maximum to indicate different things. I am using it to indicate when the band is born at 55. are they also calling that the maximum? There may also be some sort of delay I am not taking into account. I will look into it.

    To which I responded:
    Ah, ok. The standard terminology is that solar maximum is when the sunspot numbers reach their peak during the cycle. But the bands are born at 55 degrees latitude at the start of the cycle, which marks the end of solar minimum, when there are few sunspots – hence my confusion.

    So you are saying the end of solar minimum will be around mid 2021, which would fit with low cycles being long cycles, which historically seems to be the case in general. However, the ‘bands being born, heralding the start of a new cycle with sunspots appearing at high latitude will be at the end of solar solar minimum, not the start. The last minimum was a protracted one, well over a year, so the 2019-2020 prediction for reaching minimum may turn out to be right.

  18. oldbrew says:

    GS: “I am also not clear why the further the planet is from the Sun the greater the magnetic potential.”

    TB: I struggle with this one too. Mathis postulates the idea that the photon streams from the planets towards the Sun get ‘focused’ by the Sun’s outwardly radiating ‘field lines’. See his Bode’s law paper for more details. Stuart may know of a more recent paper where he has developed this idea further.
    —-

    Could it be linked to the fact that the solar wind accelerates after leaving the Sun contrary to theory saying it should slow down?

    NASA: ‘What heats and accelerates the solar wind?’

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08mar_solarwind/

    I doubt if MM would agree with much, or any, of the NASA thinking there. There might be some clues in this Mathis paper – not sure if it helps.

    Click to access cater.pdf

    MM: ‘As usual, the mainstream has cause and effect reversed. Stars don’t cause winds, they simply reside in pre-existing wind paths. They are where they are because the wind is there. Matter is drawn to charge channels by straight potentials—or statistics if you like. Just as wind in the atmosphere draws material into it, any particulate wind will draw matter into it. Since photons are very small particles, the charge field acts exactly like wind. Charge is photon wind.’

  19. tallbloke says:

    Eric B: Thanks, and I agree. 🙂

  20. tallbloke says:

    OB: That can’t be the full story though. I think Mathis is talking about why stars are found where they are in that excerpt, but his theory in this paper talks about the sun ‘recycling’ his ‘photon charge wind’ coming from galactic centre into its poles and spraying it out either side of the equator as per his diagram. So in this sense the star doesn’t ’cause’ photon wind; it redirects it: In at the poles – out radially, along with a load of protons, electrons and other micro-bitties.

    But it’s as if it’s outgoing from 30 degrees either side of the equator, and perhaps converging towards the equatorial plane and the heliospheric current sheet, (In fact I think I’ve seen Hubble images of stars (and galaxies) with just this sort of teardrop-shaped plasma stream emanating from either side.) – reaching the heliopause, and cycling back inwards arriving back at the Solar poles, passing the planets on the way. Maybe this is where he picked up the ‘projecting Jupiter’s diameter onto the Sun’ idea. This aspect is all very speculative, and needs a lot of working on to make anything coherent out of in my opinion.

    That said, there’s little doubt in my mind that the EM ‘reverberations’ permeating the solar system are responsible for the planetary orbital motions, spin rates and solar activity cycles being synchronised, as our work has discovered they are. Just how it is all arranged is a complex question to be worked out.

    At least Mathis is having a stab at that, rather than sweeping the whole set of coinciding observations under the carpet (many of which they’re not even aware of because they don’t read the right journal 🙂 ) like the gravity-only mainstreamers do.

  21. oldbrew says:

    TB: This paper explains the ‘charge mirror’ concept – not sure if it’s the one you were looking at.

    ‘If you have learned nothing else from this paper and my papers on Bode’s law, tilt, and eccentricity, I hope you have learned that the outer planets act like charge mirrors, reflecting charge back into the Solar system. They take in the charge and re-emit some of it back toward the Sun. I also hope you have understood that the circular form of their orbits allows them to act like focusing mirrors. The charge they reflect back into the system is focused as it moves back to the Sun, increasing its density and therefore its field power. This makes the Jovians much more powerful as charge entities than anyone has understood.’

    Click to access chargedens.pdf

    In the new paper (cause of the solar cycle) he says:
    ‘Since charge density increases as it comes back toward the Sun, Saturn’s charge will increase more than Jupiter’s.’

    Neptune is the furthest away of the four main planets, so his ‘mass-density-distance from Sun’ calcs say it has more charge power than low-density Saturn.

  22. Chaeremon says:

    I appreciate the papers of Miles Mathis despite they are organized like cover stories in a magazine.

    Miles never attacks a subject if he can’t show substantial deviations from common sense thinking, and also if he’d nothing to add after intensive study of ‘explanations’ of ‘scholars’ who only want to be paid just for show and not substance (aka wiki-Pravda).

    It is therefore that I sincerely thank team tallbloke for raising the awareness of Miles’ work in the blogosphere 🙂

  23. I rather like this approach in that it that it suggests that the universe has a sort of ‘fabric’ such that the behaviour of mass in one location affects the behaviour of mass in another location by distorting that fabric.

    It is an alternative to the curved space of Einstein and may be more useful because it implies a distortion of space in multiple, variable directions from location to location rather than a simple universe wide ‘curve’.

    That could assist with some of the limitations of Einstein’s theories.

    Someone said:

    “I am also not clear why the further the planet is from the Sun the greater the magnetic potential.”

    I immediately thought of the fact that the further away lumps of matter are from one another the greater the gravitational potential energy that they each contain. As they move closer that potential energy is converted to kinetic energy and the temperature rises.

    I see no reason why one cannot apply the same principle to a charge field such that the further apart are two sources of charge the greater the charge potential that they each contain and, as they move towards each other, that charge potential converts increasingly to actual charge which could affect the internal kinetics of the lumps of matter involved.

    One doesn’t need to limit it to a single galaxy either. It would affect all the matter and photons in the universe so that observations from one location could lead to an incorrect impression of expansion in all directions at once.

    Could it affect light photons so as to lead to the Red Shift which is put forward as the best evidence of expansion in all directions ?

    The concept of charge as a photon wind appeals too.

    It is logical that the initial creation of space, however achieved, would result in irregularities in the distribution of photons and the gravitational effects of those irregularities would themselves cause wind like flows of photons (and ultimately large clumps of matter) constantly moving around relative to one another within the available space.

    The implications of this go way beyond the effects of our planets on our sun.

  24. I notice a lot of adverse comment on the ‘net about Miles’s theories where the critics go into detail about factual errors and misrepresentations.

    I’ve no idea where the truth lies in relation to the detail of his theories but he is a good enough writer to engage initial interest.

    As for the issue of planetary effects on the sun’s internal mechanics I recall the late Timo Niroma issuing predictions on the same basis and he has had some success.

  25. tallbloke says:

    A lot of the criticisms of Miles work arise out of a misunderstanding of terms. Frequently, Miles redefines (verbally and mathematically) the way something should be calculated. He then reuses that new technique elsewhere using the original term. People then come along, use the old way of doing the calc instead of the new method he has derived, and accuse him of doing his sums wrong. You have to read a lot of his work to get to the point where you know what he’s up to.

  26. oldbrew says:

    Stephen Wilde says: ‘The implications of this go way beyond the effects of our planets on our sun.’

    Yes – Mathis says ‘CBR [cosmic background radiation] is the charge field of the universe’

    http://milesmathis.com/hubb.html

  27. “You have to read a lot of his work to get to the point where you know what he’s up to.”

    Just a quick scan was very intriguing because it immediately hit a chord for me having read about subatomic physics and the physics of the universe on and off since being a student. I think I do know what he is up to.

    The conventional understanding is full of gaps and based on unproven assumptions such as dark matter, black holes and the significance of the Red Shift.

    In many ways, subsuming a large number of phenomena into variable reactions between clumps of matter and an all pervasive charge field could be very useful.

    As to whether he is more right than the conventional understanding, I have no way of knowing.

  28. steverichards1984 says:

    Once read, this seems so obvious!

    Well done.

    So we have planets orbiting the sun, each offering mutual attraction, which has this effect on our sun.

    We have our earth traveling through this varying strength field which, one could imagine would have a great effect on our climate.

    It would be good to have some 3D modellers do the sums and calculate the potential effect on the earth caused by the planets perambulating around.

  29. “We have our earth traveling through this varying strength field which, one could imagine would have a great effect on our climate”

    That might be a step too far.

    The charge field would not directly affect climate because it is very weak on the small scale and would not significantly affect the mass of oceans and atmosphere.

    However, if variations in the charge field between the mass of the planets and the mass of the sun affect the internal dynamics of the sun then that could affect Earth’s climate as per my New Climate Model.

  30. oldbrew says:

    Once again Mathis has covered it: The Charge Field of the Earth

    Click to access charge.pdf

    After saying:
    ‘You can’t really push equations like this: they either work or they don’t’

    he works out an actual number:
    ‘The proof is complete. It worked. And I have a number for the charge field of the Earth. It’s pretty
    small, which explains why it has remained hidden in most cases.’

  31. I predict solar cycle 24 will end in year 2021 or 2022 the next maximum for solar cycle 25 I think will not occur until 2027.
    I expect solar cycle 24 which started in Dec. of 2008 to be 13 or 14 years in length.

    David Archibald who I respect greatly I think is also calling for this.

    I feel post 2005 the sun went from a very active mode to an inactive mode and will behave similar to how it did during the Dalton Minimum.

    I think the item to watch are the polar fields which are still staying at neutral and have strayed away from neutral a much lesser degree during solar cycle 24 then previous recent solar cycles.

    I also expect the sun to display very quiet conditions from the time this current maximum ends until at least year 2027. Dalton like in activity at best.

  32. Bob Weber says:

    Thanks TB for this. I was in communication with Miles yesterday. Here is part of what I said:

    “Miles,

    I appreciate all your efforts over the years; read your latest, and have a few recommendations:

    1) List all planetary charge field contributions during all 24 solar cycles, in one table, that hindcasts the solar minimums, maximums, and approx dates that the “blue” and “red” streams formed, and the calculated latitudes for each, and compare all to actual data.”

    His work reminded me of Lanschiedt’s, Sharp’s, TB’s, Channon’s, and others where the Jovains are the controlling influence. I hope Miles will do such a carefully documented hindcast so that it can be compared to the other’s work.

    Further, as an electrical engineer, I find it ironic that electricity is mechanical in nature!

    Miles is a great mind in troubled times.

  33. Why can’t Miles say in black and white what year solar cycle 24 ends and solar cycle 25 begins? What year does the maximum in solar cycle 25 occur in?. What is so hard about that?

    He has failed to get those simple points across.

    Any one know the answers to what he is trying to convey?

  34. Bob Weber says:

    Salvatore, perhaps Miles overlooked the distinction accidently, much like I mispelled Landschiedt’s name above.

  35. Bob what is your prediction as to when solar cycle 24 ends? I think it will be sometime around 2022.

  36. Rog a suggestion which I think would be interesting if nothing else. Why not have a poll taken among us posters as to when we think solar cycle 24 ends and solar cycle 25 begins? I would be interested in the consensus answer.

  37. http://sc25.com/index.php?id=250&linkbox=true&position=1

    One more post on this subject. thanks. I agree with David Archibald. Here is another article on his thinking. Time will tell.

  38. Bob Weber says:

    Salvatore – this solar cycle will end when it’s damned good and ready too!

    No, seriously, Miles made a well-thought out prediction, perhaps he’s right. At least he was specific and provided reasons – it is a falsifiable prediction, not some hand-waving generalities like the warmists usually make, and it wasn’t made by comparing previous solar cycles.

    I agree that this cycle looks to be on track to be longer than usual, like #23. Predicting cycles has been a fairly dicey proposition for just about everyone, but we need to keep perspective – we’re all still learning about the Sun and what makes it tick, so expect most to be wrong, some spectacularly, some by a little. Expecting perfection at this stage of the game is a bit unrealistic.

    Case in point: see http://origin-www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/usaf-45-day-ap-and-f107cm-flux-forecast and notice the F10.7 forecast for the next week, where they expect a solar flux of 160, and further along they predict it’ll range between 125-150sfu. Yesterday when I checked this, the next week’s forecast was topped out at 150, and the lower range going forward was 115. So in one day they changed their forecast to a more active solar output for the next 45 days. If the US Air Force can’t make and stick to a forecast for the next solar rotation, what hope do we have to pin down a solar minimum date exactly several more years out?

    My solar accumulation model, which you haven’t seen, based on F10.7 and SSTs since 1961-now, indicates SSTs warm above 120sfu, and cools below that threshold. My experience since developing this model in June tells me it works pretty well. So that would mean we can expect a warmer fall than we earlier thought – IF the UASF F10.7 forecast is right this time. We are still in the “solar max” period, even if the previous peak levels are not reached. This could go on for some time, as happened in former cycles.

    So, essentially, solar-induced global warming is still operable, and we can expect the warmists to continue blathering on about how fast-rising CO2 levels are causing it and so on.

  39. J Martin says:

    Bob, your solar accumulation model says we are still in a warming mode. Does your model account for the 18 year pause ?

  40. Thanks Bob interesting.

  41. Michele says:

    2020 : Planetary Configurations interesting, we must not forget Venus !

    Bye,
    mic

  42. Bob Weber says:

    JM – The cause of the pause was the cause before the pause.

    The higher solar activity during SC17-23 (overcoming lower SC20) caused the global warming phase that ended at least a decade ago. The Earth’s temperatures have on average leveled off as the ocean heat content accumulation from all those years of the Modern Maximum in solar activity, from 1936-2003 from my calculations, using both Svalgaard’s new GSN and the SIDC numbers (they give the exact same result!), has been mitigated by the cooling effect of lower solar activity periods during all the solar minimums since 1936, and the SC23 declining phase through SC24.

    The Sun warms and cools the Earth by emitting more or less photon flux. Earth cools off with insufficient incoming photon flux. A good proxy for the solar spectrum (total photon flux) is F10.7cm radio flux, a small slice of TSI on the sun’s frequency spectrum. The solar flux and sunspot number track very closely.

    When the Sun is hot, we’re hot, when it’s not, we’re not. Over the course of a single rotation, or over the course of a whole cycle or series of cycles. The warming/cooling effect works in short time frames and long time frames.

    For example, when we were in the “solar all-quiet” earlier this summer, the sunspot number dropped to zero for a day for the first time since the last solar minimum, with a corresponding drop in solar flux down to 89 sfu. That week was the coldest week all summer. The farside at that time had a lot of spots. In early July, SSN was 256, solar flux was 201, and it was hot. I have US temperature map data to back this up.

    Solar cycle #24 had a daily average solar flux of 100 sfu/day as of July 10 (when I last did the calculation), and will be slightly higher now after a more active summer of mostly over 120 sfu/day,

    Comparing cycles, in order of cycle, in sfu/day (F10.7cm measurements started in 1947):
    #19@139
    #20@113
    #21@135
    #22@123
    #23@122
    #24@100.

    For cycles before #19, we rely on SSNs.

    This analysis, extended to both the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum (among any others), explains the temperature drops experienced here on Earth result from deep, sustained solar slowdowns, especially during the Maunder, when the SSN was nonexistent quite a while, decades.

    During the Dalton Minimum, SSN was zero for the whole year of 1810, when the depth of cold measured in at an almost 2C drop over the previous 9 years. The average SSN didn’t rise high enough to raise temperatures back again to where they previously were for almost two decades after 1810.

    As long as solar flux is above 120, it’ll stay warm and very slightly build more heat into the system. When SC24 winds down, and daily SSNs are down and solar flux drops below 120 every day for the duration of the minimum and into the next cycle #25 (expected to be a low cycle), we will experience a noticable temperature drop (on average), as has happened during every solar minimum, whether it be between cycles as in 2008-10, as in 1810, or during a sequence of low cycles, as during the Maunder.

    To make a long story short, a hotter Sun from 1936-2003, when solar activity as measured by sunspot number was 31% higher for 68 years than the annual average SSN for the previous 183 years, caused global warming.

    A less hot Sun since then caused the “pause” – a misnomer – and in due time, an even cooler Sun, however small a variation in total magnitude, will cause global cooling.

    Works every time. Further analysis indicates the Sun causes extreme weather effects – but that’s for another day…

    The Sun causes warming, cooling, and extreme weather effects. The Sun did it – it always has, it always will – and it will do it again and again until the end of time.

    If Miles Mathis’ techniques work for all cycles he will have developed a sure-fire way to know when the downturns and upticks will occur forever more. And that goes for the rest of you Talkshoppers also working on the problem of what causes the solar cycles.

  43. `Does anyone have any idea of what miles actually means by “charge field” and/or “charge photon”?

  44. p.g.sharrow says:

    Miles Mathis uses Photons and Anti-Protons to explain his vision of action over distance in the Solar System. I prefer the use of Aether, as Photon, Electron, Neutrino, etc. may well be descriptions of the same thing that just has different EMF signatures caused by spin, precession and travel. A study of RF transmission and antenna element behavior. might give a better understanding of force reflection by outer elements.We exist in an ocean of energies. Those of us that have been taught in the field of electricity, “every electron in the universe feels the actions of all other electrons.” have to consider the effects of moving electrons in one place causing effects at near or far distance. pg

  45. p.g.sharrow says:
    September 10, 2014 at 5:35 am

    Miles Mathis uses Photons and Anti-Protons to explain his vision of action over distance in the Solar System. I prefer the use of Aether, as Photon, Electron, Neutrino, etc. may well be descriptions of the same thing that just has different EMF signatures caused by spin, precession and travel. A study of RF transmission and antenna element behavior. might give a better understanding of force reflection by outer elements.We exist in an ocean of energies. Those of us that have been taught in the field of electricity, “every electron in the universe feels the actions of all other electrons.” have to consider the effects of moving electrons in one place causing effects at near or far distance. pg

    Thank you. Is his charge field strength proportional to 1/r like an electric or magnetic field or proportional to 1/r^2 an EMR field strength or a gravitational field? Can it be static like the field dielectric stress in a charged capacitor or the magnetic field about an inductor with fixed current?

  46. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Will Janoschka

    I have not actually studied Miles work. I just marvel that much of his vision of connections parallel much of my own. I was very dissatisfied with the standard theory so created my own based on everything that I had learned over near 60 years of study.

    When we work with human size creations we work with moderate energies in very small amounts relative to the size of GOD’s creations. We are about midpoint in size between atomic and Galactic size. The Solar atmosphere / force field extends out to the Helopause. All the planets exist well within this region.

    From the point of view of many educate savants everything is in “Free Fall” Therefore very small energies could have very large effects over long periods of time. The Earth’s magnetic field causes a wobble in the moons motions every 24 hours, because the earth’s magnetic field is not aligned with it’s axis of rotation. The earth loses rotational energy to the moon’s orbital speed. Why wouldn’t the Sun’s rotation effect the planets and the planets circulations effect the solar activities.

    There is much to understand about how it all works together. pg

  47. p.g.sharrow says: September 10, 2014 at 6:32 am

    “@Will Janoschka, I have not actually studied Miles work. I just marvel that much of his vision of connections parallel much of my own. I was very dissatisfied with the standard theory so created my own based on everything that I had learned over near 60 years of stud.”

    OK, I started to read and didcovered that I needed something to smoke, much better than what I had! I was hoping someone else had tried to understand. I agree with your dissatisfaction of current non-science. Currently, I think Solar EM radiation has much to do with maintaining the biosphere and creating “interesting” weather, but little to do with the internal energy of this Earth, or
    some ridiculous average surface temperature, that may, or may not, indicate part of that internal energy. Who must you hire to get “some” information for $120 BILLION?

  48. tallbloke says:

    Will: Is his charge field strength proportional to 1/r like an electric or magnetic field or proportional to 1/r^2 an EMR field strength or a gravitational field?

    http://milesmathis.com/tesla.html
    “The ether that Tesla believed in was an ether created by the E/M field. In fact, Tesla’s ether has much in common with my foundational E/M field, a real bombarding field emitted by all quanta and all objects. He stated that this field diminished with the square of the distance from Earth (or any spherical object), and my foundational E/M field does this (minus time differentials). He stated that this field combined with the gravitational field, and was often more powerful than it. I have shown this in my Cavendish paper and many other papers.”


    “The lines represent the flux emanating from the source. The total number of flux lines depends on the strength of the source and is constant with increasing distance. A greater density of flux lines (lines per unit area) means a stronger field. The density of flux lines is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source because the surface area of a sphere increases with the square of the radius. Thus the strength of the field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source.” – Wikipedia

    Will: Can it be static like the field dielectric stress in a charged capacitor or the magnetic field about an inductor with fixed current?

    As I understand his theory, the charge field would appear to be static if all photon emitting masses within the field were static, relative to each other and the source of the photons they are ‘recycling’. However, the photons are always on the move, so the ‘static field’ surrounding a mass is a manifestation of a constant ‘photon pressure’ being emitted by the object. In this way, Mathis’ ‘fundamental’ or ‘underlying’ photon driven charge field gives rise to the observed E/M phenomena such as ‘static charge’.

    Note that he appears to have something of an epiphany in the paper Stuart linked where he states that:

    Click to access cater.pdf

    “Stars don’t cause winds, they simply reside in pre-existing wind paths. They are where they are because the wind is there. Matter is drawn to charge channels by straight potentials—or statistics if you like. Just as wind in the atmosphere draws material into it, any particulate wind will draw matter into it. Since photons are very small particles, the charge field acts exactly like wind. Charge is photon wind.”

  49. oldbrew says:

    If you go to MM’s website and look at ‘Section 4: Electromagnetics’ there are numerous items relating to charge.

    http://www.milesmathis.com/

  50. tallbloke says:

    But be careful to distinguish between his discussions of Coulomb’s charge equation (which has the same form as Newton’s gravity equation!) and his own concept of ‘the charge field’.

  51. Tanner says:

    It may be interesting to take a look at the work of Pier Luigi Ighina on magnetic atoms. He worked closely with Guglielmo Marconi. He studied atoms and discovered what he termed the “magnetic atom” and how it affected other atoms.

    He also has a theory on the interaction of magnetic atoms between the Sun and the Earth which he links to sun spots. He studied atoms by slowing their vibration down so that he could observe them. He noted that main stream scientists study atoms by exciting them and then in effect end up studying the atom in an already altered state.

    He also did experiments with magnetic atoms and cloud formation! He passed away in 2004.

  52. tallbloke says: September 10, 2014 at 8:03 am

    (Will: Is his charge field strength proportional to 1/r like an electric or magnetic field or proportional to 1/r^2 an EMR field strength or a gravitational field?)

    http://milesmathis.com/tesla.html

    “The ether that Tesla believed in was an ether created by the E/M field. In fact, Tesla’s ether has much in common with my foundational E/M field, a real bombarding field emitted by all quanta and all objects. He stated that this field diminished with the square of the distance from Earth (or any spherical object), and my foundational E/M field does this (minus time differentials). He stated that this field combined with the gravitational field, and was often more powerful than it. I have shown this in my Cavendish paper and many other papers.”

    OK I can understand Tesla and his cyclic electromagnetic field Which Mathis calls a charge field.
    Then Mathis ASSUMES this implies flux. Where does Mathis treat the charge field and an opposing charge field (opposite direction same frequency), and the required and observed reduction in that assumed flux?

    oldbrew says: September 10, 2014 at 9:01 am

    I”f you go to MM’s website and look at ‘Section 4: Electromagnetics’ there are numerous items relating to charge. http://www.milesmathis.com/

    OK done that, Miles only attempts to put electricity and magnetism into some mechanical form
    like Newtons gravity that must have mass. He seems ignorant of the fact that these measurable properties need no mass to exist thus cannot be mechanical. Mathis also conveniently ignores the measurable forces of static electricity and static magnetism, forces that like pushing on a wall, do no work unless the wall moves as a result. Miles deliberately ignores such measurable forces, as they would foul his concepts. He even goes so far as to trash Maxwell’s equations without ever understanding what they are or the mathematics used.

    tallbloke says: September 10, 2014 at 9:44 am

    “But be careful to distinguish between his discussions of Coulomb’s charge equation (which has the same form as Newton’s gravity equation!) and his own concept of ‘the charge field’.”

    Coulomb’s electric field and Faraday’s magnetic field do not have the same form as Newton’s gravity equations But the vector product of E X M have that property and can be attractors or repellors, dependent on the the vector of that cross product. The two need no mass as the results are only the location of a Coulomb, or the constant flux of a Coulomb. The Coulomb itself, needs no mass but generally has the mass of one coulomb of electrons moved to a single location.

    Roger,
    No doubt Miles Mathis is extremely intelligent, but his writings, seem to be some cross between Gary Novak, and Doug Cotton! He seems to want to put everything in the form of unified field theory, even when that theory does not apply, or is very poor at explaining anything. His writings on doped semiconductors shows no concept of crystalline structure.

  53. Bob thanks for your latest post very practical and useful information.

    As far as Miles his guess is no better then anyone else.

  54. p.g.sharrow says:

    Salvatore Del Prete says:
    September 10, 2014 at 4:06 pm

    “Bob thanks for your latest post very practical and useful information.”

    “As far as Miles his guess is no better then anyone else.”

    Salvatore has it right! LoL
    A very good place to start. pg

  55. Bob the info. you sent was great. I had to say it again. What I like is our independent studies have brought us to essentially the same conclusions.

  56. Bob and others some interesting charts to look at.

  57. Bob Weber says:

    Thanks Salvatore. It was a very revealing set of studies for me. As for the sunspot integral depicted by hockey schtick, it is another way to describe the solar accumulation factor. I believe Tallbloke came to a similar conclusion at least 4 years ago from his own sunspot integral analysis.

    Returning to the subject at hand of what causes the sunspot cycles. It has always interested me as to why the solar polar field reverses direction magnetically and what does it mean physically.

    Relying on the “right hand rule”, it seems to me that what it means is that whatever is causing the change in magnetic field direction from positive to negative or vice versa in fact changed direction itself by 180 degrees at the time of the polarity flip.

    I’ve always considered the polar fields, all fields anywhere in fact, to be caused by the movement of charged particles, such as in the solar plasma, that is constituted primarily by electrons and protons from split apart hydrogen atoms and from other heavier ions.

    Miles Mathis says the charge field, others say the aether, others dark matter, a few say space itself regenerates all electrons and protons continually by recycling the fundamental medium.

    To my way of thinking, the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) is the superposition of all contributions from each baryon in motion through the heliosphere, whether from planetary, solar, or cosmic cources.

    I think Miles would describe the IMF as caused by the charge photons (aether, dark matter, space)circulated through the baryons in motion in the heliosphere, or something close to that. He should feel free to correct me if I’m wrong about that.

    So what that means to me is the polar fields change polarity because “charge” changed direction, whether at the micro level of the charge field, or at the macro level of charged particles.

    Miles Mathis’ theory and Electric Universe theory both call for stars to be fed by galactic energy,
    whether at the micro level of the charge field, or at the macro level of charged particles.

    Both can be right, IMO. Is there measurable evidence for confirmation?

  58. tallbloke says:

    Bob Weber: I wasn’t the first to integrate sunspot numbers, but I believe I was the first to hit on the idea of subtracting out the average sunspot number at which the oceans neither gain nor lose energy in order to create a proxy for ocean heat content and so SST. You are one of the few people to acknowledge this (Paul Vaughan is another), so thank you.

    Ray Tomes developed a theory in which, due to a relativistic effect, the Sun’s core moves up and down a kilometer or so relative to it’s surface as the sum of the planetary masses wanders above and below the solar equatorial plane (the Sun is tilted at ~7 degrees to the invariant plane). This doesn’t sound much, but once you consider the pressures near the core, the resulting flows on the surface are considerable, and they would reverse direction at the decadal scale. This concept enabled me to find some remarkably good correlations between solar barycentric motion in the z axis, and solar activity (and, curiously, changes in Earth’s length of day).

    Note the departure and return of the correlation in the Dalton Minimum at the times of ‘hiccups’ (marked by black ticks near the time axis labels) in the radial SSB distance (grey curve) which keep the SSB within 0.1 solar radii of the surface for an extended period of several years (Landscheidt 1988).

    I discussed this SSB(z) correlation with LOD in my second PRP paper: http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/199/2013/prp-1-199-2013.pdf

  59. tallbloke says:

    Will: Where does Mathis treat the charge field and an opposing charge field (opposite direction same frequency), and the required and observed reduction in that assumed flux?

    Read his sub-atomic papers for the cancelling of photon spins.

    Miles only attempts to put electricity and magnetism into some mechanical form like Newtons gravity that must have mass.

    Newton’s gravity is not mechanical, it is action at a distance. When pushed about this, Newton evasively replied “I frame no hypotheses”. If you believe it is mechanical, please explain how a particle emanating from one body travels to another body, takes hold of it, and pulls it back towards the first body. Or if you want to propose a Le-Sage type ‘push’ gravity, don’t call it Newton’s.

    He seems ignorant of the fact that these measurable properties need no mass to exist thus cannot be mechanical

    In Mathis’ ‘pool ball mechanics’, everything that moves has a mass, even photons. There are no electrical or magnetic fields without masses in motion, hence his comment that charge is photon wind.

    He even goes so far as to trash Maxwell’s equations without ever understanding what they are or the mathematics used.

    You’ve only been introduced to Miles work for less than 48 hours, yet you’ve read all his three fat books, his hundreds of update papers and know what he has and hasn’t done and (mis)understood already! Remarkable!

  60. Highly interesting discussion. When Mathis calculations are correct current cycle 24 will end in september 2021. This makes a solar cycle of about 13 years. With the ” Archibald” relation between average sunspot numbers and average temperatures measured in selected (reliable) weatherstations we should be in for a cooling of temperatures.

  61. tallbloke says:

    oebele: If I understand Miles’ prediction, the thinks the new 55 latitude bands will form in mid 2021, heralding new high latitude sunspots. That will be the start of cycle 25, rather than the end of cycle 24. With the Sun in grand minimum, the cycle minimum might be long and confusing anyway, but I think it’s worth making the distinction.

  62. tallbloke says: September 11, 2014 at sl-*977777777777777/
    +++++++++++++++++7:10 am

    Will: (“Where does Mathis treat the charge field and an opposing charge field (opposite direction same frequency), and the required and observed reduction in that assumed flux?”)

    “Read his sub-atomic papers for the cancelling of photon spins”

    Roger,
    Miles has been doing that nonsense for years! How is his photon BS More clear than Poyntings vector arithmetic for EMR? They are the same thing, except for the Miles Mathis intent to confuse.

    (“Miles only attempts to put electricity and magnetism into some mechanical form like Newtons gravity that must have mass.”)

    “Newton’s gravity is not mechanical, it is action at a distance. When pushed about this, Newton evasively replied “I frame no hypotheses”. If you believe it is mechanical, please explain how a particle emanating from one body travels to another body, takes hold of it, and pulls it back towards the first body. Or if you want to propose a Le-Sage type ‘push’ gravity, don’t call it Newton’s.”

    All of Newton’s equations deal with only local force and mass. That local gravity must be a local force that affects the position of mass. At a distance Newton correctly answered “I frame no hypotheses”. This is never evasive as Miles claims. It is Newton’s skilful admission that he did not know. Miles thinks he knows, but does not, and has no skill at admission of his limitations.

    (“He seems ignorant of the fact that these measurable properties need no mass to exist thus cannot be mechanical”)

    “In Mathis’ ‘pool ball mechanics’, everything that moves has a mass, even photons. There are no electrical or magnetic fields without masses in motion, hence his comment that charge is photon wind.”

    Is this in any way understandable?

    (“He even goes so far as to trash Maxwell’s equations without ever understanding what they are or the mathematics used.”)

    “You’ve only been introduced to Miles work for less than 48 hours, yet you’ve read all his three fat books, his hundreds of update papers and know what he has and hasn’t do”

    Roger,
    I refuse to read more of Miles trash, similar to the trash of ClimAstrologists!

    Demonstrate that Miles has read and understood all of Maxwell’s three fat books. If he had, he would be familiar with Quaternion arithmetic. Miles would never have stacked rotations, as the quaternion arithmetic treats that only as a different rotational rate (frequency) at a different spin vector. Quaternions must be independent of any axis. With the Miles BS, the Lissajous orbits at L1 and L2 would have been impossible!

  63. Thanks, TB. Anyway by 2021 we will know and understand a whole lot more. BTW: Mathis site is one of my favorites, including the art of course.

  64. tallbloke says:

    Will: All of Newton’s equations deal with only local force and mass. That local gravity must be a local force that affects the position of mass. At a distance Newton correctly answered “I frame no hypotheses”. This is never evasive as Miles claims. It is Newton’s skilful admission that he did not know.

    It is the ‘not knowing’ of a wise monkey. And he extends his ‘local’ equations to derive Kepler’s laws concerning solar system orbits in terms of his own theory. Not all that local then!

    I refuse to read more of Miles trash

    Fine. In that case please stop making definitive statements about his work from your position of ignorance.

  65. malagabay says:

    Given mainstream theory, there doesn’t seem to be any physical way that Jupiter could be causing the magnetic cycles of the Sun, so no one goes there.

    Working from first principles it seems likely that the [predominantly] magnetic phenomena of sunspots should be driven by an electromagnetic phenomenon.

    Therefore, EM [electromagnetism] is far more likely than BS [BarycentriSm ].

    However, sunspots are observed to slowly converge towards the equator during the course of the solar cycle.

    Again, working from first principles, any electromagnetic driver should be moving:
    a) from above the ecliptic towards the equator of the sun.
    or
    b) from below the ecliptic towards the equator of the sun

    The inclined orbits of the planets [except the Earth] fit this general description of moving from above to below ecliptic and back again.

    Furthermore, the aphelion and perihelion [for each planet] always occurs either above or below the ecliptic [depending up each planet].

    Using these basic concepts an analysis of the aphelion and perihelion dates for Jupiter and Saturn reveals a fairly close alignment with solar activity during the [approximate] 60 year period from 1940 to 2000.

    See: http://malagabay.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/pattern-recognition/

    This 60 year period potentially provides the underlying rhythm for the Earth’s 60 year climate cycles.

    However, this basic analysis needs to be extended to include the other planets because it appears that a phase change occurred around 2000 [which is probably connected to the 60 year cycle].

  66. tallbloke says:

    Hey Tim! Thanks for calling by.
    “Therefore, EM [electromagnetism] is far more likely than BS [BarycentriSm].”

    The barycentric motion and consequent positions of stuff undoubtedly have good correlations to solar activity levels, no matter what force you think they are a proxy for. E.g. Landscheidt offered the speculation that the magnetically active Sun swinging through it’s own plasma field as it changed it’s radius of orbit around the barycentre might help explain activity levels. So straight away you have a motion induced by gravitational interaction (or the gurgling of vortices if you prefer 😉 ) producing an electro-magnetic effect.
    Or is it the electromagnetic effects driving the motion of the planets and Sun…

    There are some interesting snippets in your ‘pattern recognition’ post. There’s definitely something orderly going on between Jupiter-Saturn and the Sun with regards to the displacement angle between them at the time of Jupiter perihelion.

  67. kuhnkat says:

    Will Janoschka,

    “With the Miles BS, the Lissajous orbits at L1 and L2 would have been impossible!”

    Powered craft do not prove or disprove this contention.

  68. kuhnkat says:

    Will Janoschka,

    “We can see this most clearly if we go to Lagrange point 1, instead of 4 and 5. It is known that Lagrange’s points 1 and 2 don’t really exist where they are supposed to. We have tried to take satellites to the Earth’s point 1, with no success. I mean, the satellites are there, but there is only a reduced instability, not a stability. Not only is there no stability there, there is no stability around the point. The most stable orbit in the area is the halo orbit near point 1, where the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) exists. But even halo orbits aren’t stable, and they require stationkeeping or governors. The same is true of Lissajous orbits, which means that Lagrange’s equations are only generally correct. He sends us to the right general area, but not to the right point, and not with the right governors. We haven’t really solved the field equations yet, because we don’t understand the make up of the fields. The engineers know this, but they are kept quiet by the theorists. The engineers push the equations to make them work, and then they are told to stay mum about it. I will recalculate point 1 below with my unified field, showing the errors in the current math. It turns out that Lagrange’s equations don’t even send us to the current Lagrange points without a lot of very unsightly tinkering.”

    http://milesmathis.com/lagrange2.html

    Tch, tch.

  69. tallbloke says: September 11, 2014 at 9:39 am

    Will: (“All of Newton’s equations deal with only local force and mass. That local gravity must be a local force that affects the position of mass. At a distance Newton correctly answered “I frame no hypotheses”. This is never evasive as Miles claims. It is Newton’s skilful admission that he did not know.”)

    “It is the ‘not knowing’ of a wise monkey. And he extends his ‘local’ equations to derive Kepler’s laws concerning solar system orbits in terms of his own theory. Not all that local then!”

    Why then did your Miles write down that Newton was being evasive? Except that is the Mathis style always. Miles POV is always different, that is good and why I read. Why must he disparage
    the originator of a concept, rather than just presenting his POV as a different POV? Kepler did it,
    Miles found it nessary to fix Kepler!

    (“I refuse to read more of Miles trash”)

    “Fine. In that case please stop making definitive statements about his work from your position of ignorance.”

    Gee Roger, I have been reading MM since his gravity paper ten years ago! If I go to the version he must disparage, more times that not, the original is more clear and better written. Why must Miles call an electromagnetic field a “charge field”, when it has no charge? What originals have you compared to the claims of MM?

  70. kuhnkat says: September 11, 2014 at 11:40 pm

    Will Janoschka, (“With the Miles BS, the Lissajous orbits at L1 and L2 would have been impossible!”)

    “Powered craft do not prove or disprove this contention.”

    The concept is impossible using stacked spins. Ask those that did that!

  71. p.g.sharrow says:

    To grasp how the universe works you must first grasp “charge” negative and “lack of charge” positive. “Neutral charge” or no charge is when they are balanced +/-.
    We live in a charge field that behaves like an atmosphere compressed to 10,000psi. Just like a fish that lives at the bottom of the ocean we generally have no idea of that fact. That pressure is not real to us. Our POV is, no pressure exists. But to understand how everything works you must take that step up in understanding. Our POV, charge differences, are very small potentials in a high pressures system. We have very small differences acting over vast areas in a frictionless environment on matter amounts both miniscule and huge. We swim in an ocean of charge. pg

  72. p.g.sharrow says:

    Imagine if you will, a single unit of charge in front of you, A Quanta. It has No motion relative
    to you. Therefore you have no way to measure it, no relative charge, no mass. no EMF effects, The charge has to be in motion for you to detect it. If they spin you can detect Inertia and mass. Now if you can capture a bucket load of charge units more on one side of a barrier then on the other side, you shout, I have a static charge! A bucket load of charge units, Electrons! Set those units in a stream of motion and you get EMF effects, Magnetism! If you can cause those units to spin around a secondary axis, Photons! Only a small amount spin and you say, I think I might have just detected a Neutrino, maybe, hard to tell. All the same thing, just different amounts of relative motion in these Quanta of charge, Dark matter/Dark charge, Aether. The stuff EVERYTHING is made of.

    Even GOD 😉 pg

  73. p.g.sharrow says: September 12, 2014 at 3:30 pm

    “To grasp how the universe works you must first grasp “charge” negative and “lack of charge” positive. “Neutral charge” or no charge is when they are balanced +/-.
    We live in a charge field that behaves like an atmosphere compressed to 10,000psi. Just like a fish that lives at the bottom of the ocean we generally have no idea of that fact. That pressure is not real to us. Our POV is, no pressure exists. But to understand how everything works you must take that step up in understanding. Our POV, charge differences, are very small potentials in a high pressures system. We have very small differences acting over vast areas in a frictionless environment on matter amounts both miniscule and huge. We swim in an ocean of charge. pg”

    OK pg,
    Your stuff is consistant, as is Tesla’s, Volt’s, Coulomb’s, Faraday’s, Maxwell’s, and all the rest of those that “study” electricity, magnetism, the direct connection between EMF and MMF, and the cyclic connections resulting in EMR with the delivery of energy detached from the generator of the necessary cyclic electromagnetic field. That delivery is more properly called “action” (work within an time interval).
    What confuses me of MM writings is the lack of consistancy. With him all of the different fields are the same, “and” may even be part of, or contained in, a gravitational field. His “charge field” can be proportional to, or the inverse of, r, r^2, or r^4 depending on his mood. I also disagree with the MM concept that a lattice defect with an extra proton, cannot be a positive charge. I have watched the defect move in the opposite direction from the electrons. -will-

  74. p.g.sharrow says: September 12, 2014 at 8:23 pm

    “Imagine if you will, a single unit of charge in front of you, A Quanta. It has No motion relative
    to you. Therefore you have no way to measure it, no relative charge, no mass. no EMF effects.”

    Why do you claim a quantum is a unit of charge?
    The quantum (wave packet) has has no charge, only “a variable amount of action, depending on the frequency of the EMR. Each cycle of EMR has the same energy. In order to create an “event” (emission of electron from a photoemissive surface), the energy must be delivered fast enough (small time interval), to do that creation of that event. The receptor of a quantum may convert that action into any form of action, depending on the receptor, charging a battery (Solar panel), creating latent heat (evaporation), increasing temperature (sensible heat), or even ploughing an acre (large fast horse).

    “The charge has to be in motion for you to detect it. If they spin you can detect Inertia and mass.”
    The only detection of EMR has been action or pressure, never mass or any atribute of mass.
    Some claim that action/(c^2 x s) is mass. No such mass creation has ever been observed.

    ” Now if you can capture a bucket load of charge units more on one side of a barrier then on the other side, you shout, I have a static charge! A bucket load of charge units, Electrons!

    Funny bucket, a Solar cell can convert EMR of sufficient action (for rectification) into charge that can be collected as stress on a dielectric (capacitor) or as a chemical change (battery) both provide EMF and current, energy sufficient to do work.

    “Set those units in a stream of motion and you get EMF effects, Magnetism!”

    The stream is “current”, which can generate a magnetic field, if the wires are not twisted!

    “If you can cause those units to spin around a secondary axis, Photons!”

    Never photons, (quanta) generated upon “reception” of wave packets of EMR.

    “Only a small amount spin and you say, I think I might have just detected a Neutrino, maybe, hard to tell. All the same thing, just different amounts of relative motion in these Quanta of charge, Dark matter/Dark charge, Aether. The stuff EVERYTHING is made of.”

    Quantum of EMR perhaps. So “aether” consists of nothing with an index of refraction changing length! Thus the size of the universe depends on the index of refraction of the universe.

    AFaIK Neutrenos are EMR with near infinite pitch (threads per inch) still going at c, they do not slow at a higher index, length increases. Glad we got all that settled 🙂 -will-

  75. p.g.sharrow says:

    Nothing is something, if it is in motion……………..er…………

    Wave packets are something that are there……. but are nothing……………………

    “AFaIK Neutrenos are EMR with near infinite pitch (threads per inch) still going at c, they do not slow at a higher index, length increases.”
    Glad we got all that settled 🙂 -will-

    Damn! I think he gets it. LoL except Neutrino threads per inch is more like turns per AU. pg

  76. You would never accept the frequency of my neutrino. Turns per AU, is similar to (number of universes), or perhaps 1/(number of universes), same thing! 🙂 -will-

  77. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Will, I was thinking of the distance of the sun to earth. Researchers examining the spin orientation of neutrinos generated by solar activities are unable to detect 1/3 of the expected spin frequencies. Perhaps the distance is too small for all orientations to be manifest.
    2/3 of a twist in 8 minutes @C would be equal to cycles per hour of spin. Very little energy, mass/inertia to be demonstrated. pg

  78. p.g.sharrow says: September 13, 2014 at 12:16 am

    “@Will, I was thinking of the distance of the sun to earth. Researchers examining the spin orientation of neutrinos generated by solar activities are unable to detect 1/3 of the expected spin frequencies.”

    They are expecting spins of stuff (sorry for no definition of “stuff”), your reseachers
    also have no defination of stuff.

    “Perhaps the distance is too small for all orientations to be manifest.
    2/3 of a twist in 8 minutes @C would be equal to cycles per hour of spin. Very little energy, mass/inertia to be demonstrated. pg”

    With neutrinos expect much conversion of “stuff” into “other”, with much entropy, (missing energy)! At any bar I can get to, I will buy each next round, to learn. (finite pensioner resource)!
    -will-

  79. p.g.sharrow says:

    To hold forth on subatomic theory in a Bar! 🙂 reminds me. 23 years ago, shortly after the Fleschmen & Pons LENR paper, a physics grad-student and I was discussing the possibilities. I launched into the behavior of neutrons and hydrogen electron shells. After a bit the bartender ask me to shut up! When I asked why? he said that the patrons had been so engrossed that no one had bought a drink for over 20 minutes! em ok……………….

    The grad-student got a better understanding of a quirk in his physics studies and then I had to remind him of the standard model that he would have to mouth to his professors if he wanted to pass his class examinations. The grad-student was an Electrical engineer and remarked that modern physics seemed to have little connection to the field of electrical studies. pg

  80. Paul Vaughan says:

    What causes the terrestrial bidecadal (~20 year) climate oscillation?

    Is it solar system barycenter stuff??
    Is it the solar Hale cycle?

    I’ve posted some new illustrations and started a poll.

    Cast your vote:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/weekend-unthreaded-48/#comment-1564848

  81. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Paul; I couldn’t see where to vote. But, From what I can see of Barycentrics, While the center is near the surface there is a great deal of stirring of the “pot” and a lot of energy released into the solar wind. As the center moves away from the surface the Gravitational stirring is reduced and the solar output greatly reduced.

    This TSI thing really gets me. A boiling pot of water at sea level has a TSI of 212F no mater the energy that is output. TSI is not a measurement of ENERGY output, it is a measurement of radiant temperature. The sun has a boiling point temperature set by it’s gravity and the radiant temperature of it’s atmosphere at it’s tropopause “surface” That, has nothing to do with it’s energy output. pg

  82. p.g.sharrow says: September 13, 2014 at 3:30 am

    “The grad-student got a better understanding of a quirk in his physics studies and then I had to remind him of the standard model that he would have to mouth to his professors if he wanted to pass his class examinations. The grad-student was an Electrical engineer and remarked that modern physics seemed to have little connection to the field of electrical studies. pg”

    We had our significant “discussions”, starting 4:30 Friday at the local Steak and Ale, Engineers, their spices, and one or two unidentified lurkers, from management, or customers. The spices often had the most difficult questions, like “why”? If you cannot explain, you do not know! How about, “What is electricity”? The scapegoat of current discussion, like me, often got to buy the next round, if it was bad enough, not just the group, the whole bar. Someone was paying much more. I never figured out who!

    p.g.sharrow says: September 13, 2014 at 5:15 pm

    “This TSI thing really gets me. A boiling pot of water at sea level has a TSI of 212F no mater the energy that is output. TSI is not a measurement of ENERGY output, it is a measurement of radiant temperature. The sun has a boiling point temperature set by it’s gravity and the radiant temperature of it’s atmosphere at it’s tropopause “surface” That, has nothing to do with it’s energy output. pg”

    How much irradiance from the pot, how much from the saturated atmosphere above the pot. Radiant temperature sure, remote sensing sure, photosphere sure. The “TSI” is a calculation of the “radiance” of the whole disk of the Sun into the wee Earth solid angle. It is the potential for flux over a limited waveband with no opposing “radiance”. It is never temperature. It is the measured electrical power generated by the solar panels on the ISS plus the sensible heat flux of the cold space, heat radiators pointed away from the Sun, also measured. From these measurements the flux from the Sun to those panels at their temperature is calculated and recalculated to absolute zero. IFAIK the wave band considered is from 0.4 to 2.5 microns where 99% of the identifiable Solar EMR flux must occur. It is a continuous measurements of “something important” about the Sun. It is likely one of the best measurements of Solar something, that earthlings can do. It also has nothing to do with power transfer to the Earth by means other than the EMR in that waveband. Someday we may discover what that measured “something” may mean. For calibration of the continuous measurements, the space station has spectroradiometers the rest of us can only drool about.

  83. oldbrew says:

    There’s an extension to the Mathis paper which appeared on the 24th September.

    Click to access cycle.pdf

  84. tallbloke says:

    Ah good, Miles took note of the email I sent him then:

    “The full maximum won’t occur until 2021, since the approaching
    Neptune will help the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction. [N. B. When I say maximum, I mean the band
    maximum we are analyzing, not the Solar spot maximum or minimum. See below for more on this.]”

  85. Will Janoschka says: September 12, 2014 at 11:39 pm

    “You would never accept the frequency of my neutrino. Turns per AU, is similar to (number of universes), or perhaps 1/(number of universes), same thing!” 🙂 -will-

    p.g.sharrow says: September 13, 2014 at 12:16 am

    “@Will, I was thinking of the distance of the sun to earth. Researchers examining the spin orientation of neutrinos generated by solar activities are unable to detect 1/3 of the expected spin frequencies. Perhaps the distance is too small for all orientations to be manifest.
    2/3 of a twist in 8 minutes @C would be equal to cycles per hour of spin. Very little energy, mass/inertia to be demonstrated. pg”

    Not energy, the conjugate of that, turns/distance! Big Bird was 4 turns per zepto-meter = 3×10^-4 Joules. Really, really fine pitch! Each “turn” has Planck’s constant worth of action! 🙂
    Merry Christmas to all -will-

  86. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Will Janoschka; Marry Christmas to you and yours. May the New Year bring health and prosperity.
    Thank you for the conversations of the past year. 😎 pg

  87. p.g.sharrow says: December 23, 2014 at 2:16 am

    “@Will Janoschka; Marry Christmas to you and yours. May the New Year bring health and prosperity. Thank you for the conversations of the past year. 😎 pg”

    ‘pg’. IFAIK, A consensus is the last thing we need, The biggest, with the best-us weapons, cannot survive, against “all with pitchforks”. The battle of different POVs is the all! Who is buying the next round? What girlies will help me home, and pet on me, after I are falling flat on my face? 🙂
    Merry Christmas to all -will-