Theory on solar cycle - www.sibet.org/solar

[edjr]

I appreciate how hard you are working on your theory. But it still looks to me like you are trying to make data fit a preconceived notion of how things should work. Compared to the Sun, Jupiter is about 0.001 its mass, and is about 1/50 its diameter. If the Sun were a basketball, Jupiter would be about the size of a pea. Jupiter contains the vast majority of planetary mass in the solar system. even if you throw in the mass of all the planets and their moons it still is hardly a spec on the sun. There just does not appear to be emough mass in Jupiter to create emough gravitational pull or other force to have a significant effect on the sun .

[bigbud]

At the moment I don´t care what the mechanism might be... the data is telling a relative clear story... it´s just about getting all the pieces together in the puzzle

-The perihelion-effect for Jupiter is one dominating "force", with a period of 11,86 years. It has a say to the SC strength, but most of all it governs the timing of the solar cycle
-The conjunction effect Jupiter-Saturn is equal important, with a period of 9,93 years. It is the dominating contributor to solar cycle strength.
-The Saturn perihelion-effect has some effect on timing, with a period of 29,46 years and about same length as tripple the JuSa-conjunction effect.

I have been checking other planetary conjunctions/oppositions, but they haven´t convinced me yet.

BB

[rbateman]

While the tidal forces for even Earth acting on the Sun are calcuable, they are mighty weak.
I remember doing the calculation once, and it was something on the order of a fraction of an inch. Compare that to a body that has a diameter of 880,000 miles and it gets buried in the scale of things.
The Sun is the big boss of the solar system.
Pluto is at an angle of 30 degrees or so to the ecliptic, as are the other 3 planetoids in that plane.
Toss in passing comets and Barnards star in high motion.
There might be something to this planetary alignment, but it's going to get very complicated as nothing seems to line up with the solar cycles.

[nautonnier]

Dec 29, 2008 21:44:53 GMT edjr said:

I appreciate how hard you are working on your theory. But it still looks to me like you are trying to make data fit a preconceived notion of how things should work. Compared to the Sun, Jupiter is about 0.001 its mass, and is about 1/50 its diameter. If the Sun were a basketball, Jupiter would be about the size of a pea. Jupiter contains the vast majority of planetary mass in the solar system. even if you throw in the mass of all the planets and their moons it still is hardly a spec on the sun. There just does not appear to be emough mass in Jupiter to create emough gravitational pull or other force to have a significant effect on the sun .

All true

Yet the mass of Jupiter and the other planets is enough to move the solar system barycenter 2 radii outside the sun and cause the sun to wobble in a way that an alien light years away could detect there was at least one planet.

So isn't it possible that the wobble may just have some affect on the differential rotation of the layers of the Sun?

[nobrainer]

There is some argument for tidal effects inside of Jupiter, with sysygies of J+E+V lining up very nicely with solar cycles...plus they stay in sync which is pretty compelling. Hung has a paper on the NASA site and a french guy called Desmoulins have done some interesting work. But the real power I believe is as nautonnier states it which goes far beyond simple perihelion effects.

[jorgekafkazar]

I thought we had a policy here not to post humongously wide charts and graphs. It drags the text width for the entire page out so far it's hard to read without scrolling left-to-right. If you want to post three heliohula charts or horoscopes, or whatever, fine. Just don't put 'em in side by side, please.

[edjr]

The planetary wobble is the best objective evidence for the planets influencing the sun, its clear the do, although a tiny amount. I appreciate your efforts to attempt to match orbits with cycles to prove cause and effect. However, assuming you can produce evidence of cause and effect, that still does not really further our understanding, unless there is some sort of explanation of a mechanism. Uneven stress on different layers of the sun somehow inhibiting the meridional circulation - something. If you do not establish a method, its like trying to solve a crime without establishing the means by which it was accomplished. Big Bud: Had an opportunity to visit Trondheim. Beaitiful City in the Summer.

[williams]

It is sure that the 4 sparkling planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune) have effects on the solar activity as evolutions of the speed of the Sun around the Barycenter these last 1000 years correspond very well to the minimum (Dalton, Maunder, Sporer, Wolf) and maximum of the solar activity. As well as of the temperature of the HN of the Globe.

To see here in my site : translate.google.fr/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fla.climatologie.free.fr%2Fsoleil%2Fsoleil.htm&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8

Williams

[france]

Dec 27, 2008 23:08:43 GMT bigbud said:

hmmm again my intuition is sending some signals...

This results in a struggle between 11,86 years and Sa/3=9,82 years.
As the largest and nearest to the sun, Jupiter is expected to dominate this struggle. Of some magical reason, the Golden ratio conjugate or Fibonaccinumber 0,618 comes into play.
Add 9,82 with 0,618 times the difference 11,86-9,82 and you get 11,08 - the average solar cycle length.

QED...

Now both planets have to compromise... as neither got their favorable solar cycle length.
The supercycle where all cycles are back in sync is ~177 years:
18 cycles of Sa: 18x9,82=176,8
15 cycles of Ju: 15x11,86=177,9
16 solar cycles: 16x11,08=177,3

This means that through one supercycle, Jupiter must sacrifice one cycle, and Saturn must squeeze in two cycles.

When Jupiter gives away one cycle, this happens by moving through the green C-group. This temporary capitulation of power allows Saturn to dominate and favors strong and short solar cycles.

When Saturn has to squeeze a cycle, it is a more noticeable event. This allows Jupiter to gain strong control, and favors long and often very weak cycles. This happens normally in the middle of an interval of A- or B-group solar cycles.

It is therefore now an anomaly that SC19-21 went through the yellow A-group and directly into B-group, without Saturn squeezing a cycle.
The consequence should either be that we are up for a long stay in B-group cycles, and will see two Saturn-cycles be squeezed through the period. Or we will have an anomalous case like SC4-5, where it moved from B-group back to A-group by an extremely long solar cycle. Could be SC23... could be SC24...

Hey, where is my whiskey... not every day I solve a mystery of the universe
-now why does the 0,618 come into play?
-and what kind of momentum dictates the strength of the solar cycle?
-and are there larger supercycles present?

Obs: when observing sunspot numbers, you may not see the 177 year supercycle, because the cycle is not strictly tied to SC-strength but rather the duty of sacrifice and squeeze.

The result should however be similar, but due to different momentum-conditions and possibly some randomness, every supercycle will look different. The length for example may be 15SC and the next one 17. Looking at data back to year 1600, and depending on definition of start- and ending-point, I get supercycles of 15 and 17, and SC23 is number 8 in todays cycle. Or by other definition I get supercycles of 15 and 16, and SC23 is number 5 in todays cycle.

The most noticeable events will be the low periods surrounding the squeeze of Saturn-cycles. The time between these events may vary within the supercycles, and the minima of one supercycle should be closer together than minima of different supercycles. The two minima may even merge into one prolonged depression (?). And that could also be my forecast... not only the economy is into depression?

Hi BB (d you know what means that 2 letters in french ? BaBy)

Seriously you work as ancient astronomers worked. You go back to the source of astronomy, when Kepler or Ptolemy made astronomy and were astrologists too.

Indeed mass of the sun is enormous and others planets tiny, but all solar system is made with the same matter at the begining all planets of our solar system become from the Sun... that question is it really treated by modern theories of solar system ?

Your mind is very well connected with luminous theory. Good work BigBud.

So if I well understood, beause of Saturn and opposition JuSa the next solar cycle will be lower than the previous was. Williams found the same with the barycenter of the solar system.

Have a nice time for the end of the year. Do you know Moon already begun the next year on 27 december ? We are late !

[bigbud]

Hi france - what a coincidence... there may be a baby underway

When looking at Timo´s page, I realize that much of my work is reproduction of his results. I rather take that as a good sign

Timo writes, conclusion 9: "Based on this analysis we can suggest that the real intensity cycle is somewhere near 9.95 years. (...)"

-well, that is much my conclusion too and the cycle should origin from the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction-opposition period of 9,93 years.

As long as the JuSa-angle is within a synchronization-range at solar minimum, the next cycle should be strong. When the angle fall outside ranges, the outcome is a weak cycle.

Assuming SC24 has begun or begins some time in 2009, it will be out of sync and weak.

Now here is a problem... the reconstructed data for 1600-1700 (if they are accurate enough) suggests that during the Maunder minimum there was a period over several solar cycles where the JuSa-effect was shifted or even inverted. Don´t know if I can trust the data, and if they are correct I don´t have an explanation. That may ruin my Jupiter-Saturn assumption... but also during the Maunder minimum there seem to have existed a ~9,93 year intensity-cycle...

BB

[rbateman]

There were cycles in the Maunder: shredded remnants of them.
You will find your 9.3 yr cycle immersed in the Maunder in this paper:
LONG-TERM SOLAR CYCLE EVOLUTION: REVIEW OF RECENT
DEVELOPMENTS
I. G. USOSKIN1 and K. MURSULA2
1Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), POB 3000, FIN-90014,
University of Oulu, Finland
2Department of Physical Sciences, POB 3000, FIN-90014, University of Oulu, Finland

According to that explanation, the 11yr subdominant and 22 dominant cycles sank out of sight, leaving only the remnants (tip of the iceberg) of the maximum peaks sticking up.

If you were able to plot negative sunspot numbers (plages and coronal hole sources), you could reconstruct the portion of SC23/24 that has slipped under the floor of visibility.

Sort of like what this site does: www.nwra-az.com/spawx/ssne24.html

[bigbud]

hmm... recognizing that the data before 1750 probably have big inaccuracy, I was tempted to slightly adjust the time for minimum given here ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/maxmin.new
ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/ANCIENT_DATA/earlyssn.dat

To fit into my model, not too big adjustments are necessary... and the result is very interesting... suggesting an explanation to the Maunder minimum... wow! Keyword is the SC4-5 mechanism. Seems it happened twice in the supercycle around 1600-1700. In the next we had one event in SC4-5. In todays supercycle we have not yet experienced this, but we could see it in SC23-24 or SC24-25...

Alternatively it seems something damped/worked strongly against the JuSa-effect in the supercycle ~1570-1750. In ~1750-1934 JuSa had a bit stronger grip, and in 1934- so far JuSa has been very strong.

Will get back to this soon...

BB

[jorgekafkazar]

Dec 31, 2008 12:10:29 GMT bigbud said:

Hi france - what a coincidence... there may be a baby underway

When looking at Timo´s page, I realize that much of my work is reproduction of his results. I rather take that as a good sign

Timo writes, conclusion 9: "Based on this analysis we can suggest that the real intensity cycle is somewhere near 9.95 years. (...)"

-well, that is much my conclusion too and the cycle should origin from the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction-opposition period of 9,93 years.

As long as the JuSa-angle is within a synchronization-range at solar minimum, the next cycle should be strong. When the angle fall outside ranges, the outcome is a weak cycle.

Assuming SC24 has begun or begins some time in 2009, it will be out of sync and weak.

Now here is a problem... the reconstructed data for 1600-1700 (if they are accurate enough) suggests that during the Maunder minimum there was a period over several solar cycles where the JuSa-effect was shifted or even inverted. Don´t know if I can trust the data, and if they are correct I don´t have an explanation. That may ruin my Jupiter-Saturn assumption... but also during the Maunder minimum there seem to have existed a ~9,93 year intensity-cycle...

BB

The right hand half of that chart is just a duplicate of the left hand half, isn't it? What is it there for?

[bigbud]

doubled up from 0-360 to 0-720 degrees to give a better cyclic view on the datapoints around 360 degrees. Alternatively I could have used -360 to 360 deg

[jorgekafkazar]

Dec 31, 2008 18:26:12 GMT bigbud said:

doubled up from 0-360 to 0-720 degrees to give a better cyclic view on the datapoints around 360 degrees. Alternatively I could have used -360 to 360 deg

Nope. Showing the same data twice on a graph is redundant, misleading, and confusing. In 50 years of science and math, this is the first time I've seen anybody do it. Trimming the graph to roughly -180° to +180° would be far better.

BTW, have you ever read "How to Lie with Statistics?" Interesting book. I think it was written by Huff. [But I don't recall seeing any data duplication in it, either.] Ask Michael Mann if you can borrow his copy.