Jackpot! Jupiter and Saturn – Solar cycle link confirmed

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
Chromium6
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Jackpot! Jupiter and Saturn – Solar cycle link confirmed

Unread post by Chromium6 » Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:08 am

Bets on the Solar Cycle:

-------
S&P versus Daily Sun Spots Cycle:

Image

Jackpot! Jupiter and Saturn – Solar cycle link confirmed

Posted: August 5, 2011 by tallbloke in Astronomy, Astrophysics, Solar physics, solar system dynamics

We have found really good evidence that the orbits of planets are intimately linked with the solar cycle and influence solar activity levels. Jupiter and Saturn are the two biggest planets in the solar system. They both have strong magnetospheres which exhibit immense aurorae at their poles. Their orbital distances and velocities are such that the timings generated by their interaction match timings derived from spectrographic analysis of the Sun’s activity as demonstrated below. What is the probability that these relationships are due to mere chance or coincidence? In our view – vanishingly small. So are we claiming that the planets cause the Sun’s activity cycles? We believe this is the wrong question. The question we should be asking is:

What are the feedback mechanisms which bring about these relationships, how are they maintained, and what is their physical basis?

But first things first, what have we found?

Over on Bart’s thread, we’ve been looking at a Power Spectral Density (PSD) analysis of the Sunspot data from 1749. After the application of some clever signal processing techniques, Bart says:

The sunspot count appears to reflect the energy of these combined processes at around 20 and 23.6 years, which necessarily has apparent periods of 0.5*T1, 0.5*T2, T1*T2/(T2+T1), and T1*T2/(T2-T1) years, or 10 years, 11.8 years, 10.8 years, and 131 years.

The 11.8 year period is very close to 11.86 years, the orbital period of Jupiter.

The 10 year period is very close to 9.93 years, half the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.
(Conjunction and opposition of these two planets are both effective tidally)

So if we hypothesise that these are the two planetary frequencies which are combining to govern the solar cycle, we are left with the 10.8 year period and 131 year period to explain in terms of their appearance in the spectral analysis.

But our solar physicist disputant Leif Svalgaard says the opposite. He maintains the 10.8 year period is the fundamental oscillation period of the so called ‘Solar Dynamo’ theory still favoured by the mainstream solar scientists, and coupled with the longer period, can then reproduce the periods which only coincidentally tally with the orbits and conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn. Both interpretations are equivalent, and so we are left needing more evidence to settle the matter one way or the other.

Yesterday on the Hale cycle thread, regular contributor Tenuc put up a link to a graph he had found on the net claiming to show a strong correlation between Jupiters changing distance from the Sun and the average sunspot number. I traced this back to the original thread it had come from on Bautforum.com and there I found a link to a 1984 paper by Schwentek and Elling of the Max Planck Institute for Aeronomy.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/ ... 6426v3.pdf

And there in the last sentence of the paragraph is a big clue:
The clearly dominant spectral band in sunspot number, the solar cycle of 10.8 years. is given by the configuration period of Jupiter and Saturn (19.859 yr) times the ratio of their distances from the Sun (0.545)
This is in fact equivalent to Bart’s third formula for ‘necessarily apparent periods’; T1*T2/(T2+T1)

i.e. 23.72 (twice Jupiters orbital period) times 19.85 (the J-S synodic period) all divided by 23.72 plus 19.85, which equals 10.806.

Kepler’s third law states: The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

So for the orbits of Jupiter(11.86 years) and Saturn(29.46 years) we find that the squares (multiplication by itself) of the orbital periods are 140.67 and 867.3. The cube roots of these values are 5.2 and 9.54. The ratio of these values (one divided by the other) is 0.545. Jupiter’s orbit is a little over half the size of Saturn’s.

As Jupiter passes Saturn at conjunction it then takes just under 20 years for Jupiter to catch up with Saturn again. We can calculate this using a law discovered by Kepler’s mentor Copernicus:
The Synodic period is given by the inverse of the inverse of the orbital period of the slower moving body minus the inverse of the orbital period of the faster moving body:

Synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn is 1/(1/11.86 – 1/29.46)=19.852 years

We can then multiply that result by the orbital distance ratio of 0.545 we calculated to obtain 10.819

The mismatch of 0.013 between Bart’s theoretical result (10.806) and this celestial mechanic’s result is due to the imperfection of Keplers law (discovered 1619), which in fact applies only to single bodies of zero mass, but it’s near enough for farmwork. :)

So all three periods around the length of the solar cycle which are observed in the spectral analysis of the sunspot numbers derive from the related orbital motions of Saturn and Jupiter. The fourth ‘necessarily apparent’ period of ~131 years is given by Bart’s equation T1*T2/(T2-T1) years. When we use the actual orbital periods rather than the DSP analysis estimates this works out at 122 years, which is within error for the spectral analysis, which reaches limits of useability as the frequency of the period’s appearance in the length of the dataset approaches zero.

The half period of 122 is 61 years and this also turns out to be related to Jupiter and Saturn another way. The 61-year cycle is given by 1/(1/9.93 – 1/11.86), where 9.93 is half the time between conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter (half, because tides are raised also on the other side of the sun), and 11.86 is Jupiter’s orbital period, as was suggested long ago by Brown [MNRAS, vol 60, pages 599-606, 1900] – My thanks to Leif Svalgaard for this excellent reference!

Furthermore, if we consider the fact that Jupiter’s orbital period is itself close to the average length of the solar cycle, and the fact that the alternating magnetic polarity of the solar cycles means that the Hale cycle of double the length can be considered as a solar cycle in it’s own right, then we can also take a look at what we get by doubling Jupiters orbital period in the above equation. 1/(1/9.93 – 1/23.72)=17.01 years, the period Leif Svalgaard claims for the “true solar cycle length” due to the continuing appearance of ‘old polarity’ sunspots after the new ~11 year Schwabe cycle has begun and ‘new polarity’ spots start to appear before it finishes.

Five out of five solar periods now accounted for by Jupiter and Saturn:

Kerrrching – JACKPOT!

We hypothesise that Saturn and Jupiter provide the background drumbeat which governs the solar cycle. The modulation of that beat by the other heavy gas giant planets and magnetically active inner planets is the subject of further investigation which has been taking place on this blog and others. We are getting closer to solving the puzzle and being able to predict the future evolution of solar activity levels with a high degree of confidence. That will revolutionise climate science, because once we can confidently predict solar activity, climatologists will ‘rediscover’ the Sun as an important climate driver. Watch this space.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/ ... confirmed/

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php ... g-sunspots

-------

http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2011 ... en-Sun.pdf
Page 39
Livingston, Penn, and Svalgaard:

Extrapolating the behavior from the past 13
years into the next 13 years suggests the Sun may enter a new Grand Minimum.
If true, we shall learn a lot about ‘The Forgotten Sun’ that nobody
alive today has ever seen, with obvious implications for the climate
debate and environmental issues generally.
-------
Might tie to this in some ways:
Origin of the Harmonics Theory
http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html
Specific cycles reported from different disciplines are:

586.24 MY - Geology - S Afanasiev
~600, ~300, ~150, 74 and 37 MY - Geology - G Williams et al
80.0, 53.3, 26.65 MY - Paleontology: Mass extinctions
2.22 MLY - Astronomy - Andromeda distance
1.11 MY - Astronomy - Solar system energy exchange
0.111, 0.0555 MY - Astronomy - Solar system dynamics
4600, 2300 Y - Climatology, Solar(?) - H H Lamb
4634, 2317, 771 Y - Astronomy - Outer planet alignments
~1000, 510, 170 Y - Weather etc - R Wheeler
355 - Historical and other - Chizhevski et al
178 - Astronomy - Outer planet dynamics, Sunspots(?)
143, 53, 22.0, 17.7, 11.2, 9.6, 6.0 Y - Wars - Chizhevski
8.9, 4.45 Y - Economics - Recessions
11.86 Y - Astronomy - Jupiter's orbital period
5.93 Y - Commodities

3.390 Y - US Stock market - E Dewey, R Mogey
1.695 Y - Commodities
154-155, 77 d = 0.423, 0.211 Y - Astronomy - Solar Corona
25.8 d = 0.0706 Y - Astronomy - Solar rotation
-----------

Also:

Solar Cycle induced through Coriolis Effect
Bart Leplae
May 2011

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/files/4451_leplae5.pdf

Do Periodic Peaks in the Planetary Tidal Forces Acting Upon the Sun Influence the Sunspot Cycle?
Ian R. G. Wilson
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/files/4425_wilson1.pdf
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Jackpot! Jupiter and Saturn – Solar cycle link confirmed

Unread post by seasmith » Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:29 pm

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/ ... confirmed/
-------
Might tie to this in some ways:
Origin of the Harmonics Theory
http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html

Exactly what i was thinking, while reading thru the text.

Ray Tomes, where art thou ?

moses
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide
Contact:

Re: Jackpot! Jupiter and Saturn – Solar cycle link confirmed

Unread post by moses » Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:54 pm

The question is whether electrical forces just outside the Solar System influence the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. As I remember it, other stars show an 11 year cycle which makes one consider that 11 years is a natural frequency for Birkeland currents.
Cheers,
Mo

User avatar
Vincent Wee-Foo
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:22 am
Contact:

Re: Jackpot! Jupiter and Saturn – Solar cycle link confirmed

Unread post by Vincent Wee-Foo » Tue Aug 27, 2013 11:39 am

Very interesting work!

I worked on a vortical Solar System model for resolving the solar cycle mystery, and on a broad-based analysis, qualitatively arrived to a similar conclusion as your findings.

I also fully agree with you that the Sun is an important Earth's climate driver.

I like to invite you to visit my web page on "Sunspot", and looking forward to collaborate and integrate with your work on solar cycle.

Best to you.
~ Vincent Wee-Foo

Enlightenment on the the paradoxical effect of nature enlightens.

User avatar
Vincent Wee-Foo
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:22 am
Contact:

Re: Jackpot! Jupiter and Saturn – Solar cycle link confirmed

Unread post by Vincent Wee-Foo » Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:54 pm

Chromium6 wrote: So are we claiming that the planets cause the Sun’s activity cycles? We believe this is the wrong question. The question we should be asking is:

What are the feedback mechanisms which bring about these relationships, how are they maintained, and what is their physical basis?
Good question!

See a link for a report on "Hidden Planet Pushes Star's Ring A Billion Miles Off-Center" that illustrates a Ring Center of a star system.

IMHO, based on UVS, it is the Solar System vortex that impels all Solar System objects to revolve around its barycenter. And in the conservation of angular momentum that manifests the orbital motion for Jupiter and Saturn, it renders the 0.545 ratio you illustrated.

See also a video clip on "SkyMarvels™ SOLAR SYSTEM BARYCENTER" that illustrates a barycenter motion of the Solar System that involves Sun and its four gas giants.

The conventional static Sun model is untenable for predicting solar cycle.
~ Vincent Wee-Foo

Enlightenment on the the paradoxical effect of nature enlightens.

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Jackpot! Jupiter and Saturn – Solar cycle link confirmed

Unread post by Goldminer » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:37 am

Vincent Wee-Foo wrote:
Chromium6 wrote: So are we claiming that the planets cause the Sun’s activity cycles? We believe this is the wrong question. The question we should be asking is:

What are the feedback mechanisms which bring about these relationships, how are they maintained, and what is their physical basis?
Good question!

See a link for a report on "Hidden Planet Pushes Star's Ring A Billion Miles Off-Center" that illustrates a Ring Center of a star system.

IMHO, based on UVS, it is the Solar System vortex that impels all Solar System objects to revolve around its barycenter. And in the conservation of angular momentum that manifests the orbital motion for Jupiter and Saturn, it renders the 0.545 ratio you illustrated.

See also a video clip on "SkyMarvels™ SOLAR SYSTEM BARYCENTER" that illustrates a barycenter motion of the Solar System that involves Sun and its four gas giants.

The conventional static Sun model is untenable for predicting solar cycle.
So, is it correct to assume that the orbit of the Moon around the Earth is circular when the Earth-Moon barycenter is taken as the center of the orbit, and correspondingly the planets are in circular orbit around the barycenter of the Sun? It seems to me that this revelation makes the varying speeds and distances of Earth's and siblings' purported elliptical orbits become illusions, can it be?
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

User avatar
D_Archer
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Jackpot! Jupiter and Saturn – Solar cycle link confirmed

Unread post by D_Archer » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:14 am

Goldminer wrote:
Vincent Wee-Foo wrote:
Chromium6 wrote: So are we claiming that the planets cause the Sun’s activity cycles? We believe this is the wrong question. The question we should be asking is:

What are the feedback mechanisms which bring about these relationships, how are they maintained, and what is their physical basis?
Good question!

See a link for a report on "Hidden Planet Pushes Star's Ring A Billion Miles Off-Center" that illustrates a Ring Center of a star system.

IMHO, based on UVS, it is the Solar System vortex that impels all Solar System objects to revolve around its barycenter. And in the conservation of angular momentum that manifests the orbital motion for Jupiter and Saturn, it renders the 0.545 ratio you illustrated.

See also a video clip on "SkyMarvels™ SOLAR SYSTEM BARYCENTER" that illustrates a barycenter motion of the Solar System that involves Sun and its four gas giants.

The conventional static Sun model is untenable for predicting solar cycle.
So, is it correct to assume that the orbit of the Moon around the Earth is circular when the Earth-Moon barycenter is taken as the center of the orbit, and correspondingly the planets are in circular orbit around the barycenter of the Sun? It seems to me that this revelation makes the varying speeds and distances of Earth's and siblings' purported elliptical orbits become illusions, can it be?
It must be real physical ellipsis because of the seasons.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -

User avatar
Vincent Wee-Foo
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:22 am
Contact:

Re: Jackpot! Jupiter and Saturn – Solar cycle link confirmed

Unread post by Vincent Wee-Foo » Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:12 am

Goldminer wrote:So, is it correct to assume that the orbit of the Moon around the Earth is circular when the Earth-Moon barycenter is taken as the center of the orbit, and correspondingly the planets are in circular orbit around the barycenter of the Sun? It seems to me that this revelation makes the varying speeds and distances of Earth's and siblings' purported elliptical orbits become illusions, can it be?
IMHO, from the barycenter perspective, your assumption is valid.

Any n-body problem can be reduced to a two-body problem with the barycenter concept, and the objects in space instantaneously move around the barycenter in circular path, but the relatively moving barycenter distorts the circular motion in any fixed frame of reference. In this sense, the purported elliptical orbits are indeed illusions.

This can be illustrated with a barycenter hypothesis "Motions of Observable Structures Ruled by Hierarchical Two-body Gravitation in the Universe"

This hypothesis can also quantitatively resolve the pioneer anomaly fairly accurately from its first principle of barycenter motion without resorting to using mathematical patch, such as making assumption on thermal recoil force and then solved the anomaly by computer simulation.
~ Vincent Wee-Foo

Enlightenment on the the paradoxical effect of nature enlightens.

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Jackpot! Jupiter and Saturn – Solar cycle link confirmed

Unread post by Goldminer » Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:59 pm

Daniel wrote:"It must be real physical ellipsis because of the seasons."
I don't think so. The distance between the Sun and Earth do change, even though the orbits of both are circles around the barycenter. The main ingredient for seasonal change is the angle of Earth's axis to its orbital plane.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

User avatar
rkm
Site Admin
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Wexford, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Jackpot! Jupiter and Saturn – Solar cycle link confirmed

Unread post by rkm » Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:31 am

As regards orbit shapes, why couldn't an orbit be an ellipse with the barycenter as one focus? Why does it have to be circular? Also, I don't understand how the barycenter concept reduces to a two-body problem. If two orbits in the system pass very close, won't you get perturbations that you wouldn't get with a point-mass barycenter?

As regards the confirmed solar-cycle link, I'm wondering what the mechanism is. I'm sure you folks can tell me, and my guess is that the magnetospheres of Jupiter and Saturn act like grids in a vacuum tube, reducing or increasing the current flow through the heliospheric current sheet. When the 'grids' pull more current through, due to the relative positions of the three bodies, the Sun acts up in response.

User avatar
Vincent Wee-Foo
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:22 am
Contact:

Re: Jackpot! Jupiter and Saturn – Solar cycle link confirmed

Unread post by Vincent Wee-Foo » Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:08 am

rkm wrote:As regards orbit shapes, why couldn't an orbit be an ellipse with the barycenter as one focus?
No it cannot.
rkm wrote:Why does it have to be circular?
That a nature of the actual celestial mechanics.
rkm wrote:Also, I don't understand how the barycenter concept reduces to a two-body problem.
For a three-body problem for Sun, Jupiter and Saturn, it can be perceived that Saturn and the barycenter of Sun and Jupiter is a two-body problem. This can resolve the three-body problem for their superior conjunction and inferior conjunction without resorting to patches with Newtonian celestial mechanics. This can also explain why Saturn moving out of superior conjunction would experienced acceleration instead of deceleration, which is inexplicable with Newtonian physics.
rkm wrote:If two orbits in the system pass very close, won't you get perturbations that you wouldn't get with a point-mass barycenter?
No.
rkm wrote:As regards the confirmed solar-cycle link, I'm wondering what the mechanism is. I'm sure you folks can tell me, and my guess is that the magnetospheres of Jupiter and Saturn act like grids in a vacuum tube, reducing or increasing the current flow through the heliospheric current sheet. When the 'grids' pull more current through, due to the relative positions of the three bodies, the Sun acts up in response.
If you can let go the Kepler's model for one minute, and then explore "The cognitive paradox fallacy in Kepler's laws of planetary motion", you can understand the orbital motion of planet is an illusion, and thus open yourself to a whole new frontier for the actual mechanism that governs the Solar System. And then you may try to see it again with your electric universe concept.
~ Vincent Wee-Foo

Enlightenment on the the paradoxical effect of nature enlightens.

cantdrive85
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 8:19 am

Re: Jackpot! Jupiter and Saturn – Solar cycle link confirmed

Unread post by cantdrive85 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:50 pm

Are the orbits elliptical or circular? Not really.

User avatar
Vincent Wee-Foo
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:22 am
Contact:

Re: Jackpot! Jupiter and Saturn – Solar cycle link confirmed

Unread post by Vincent Wee-Foo » Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:55 pm

Vincent Wee-Foo wrote:This can also explain why Saturn moving out of superior conjunction would experienced acceleration instead of deceleration, which is inexplicable with Newtonian physics.
Oops! My apology, it instead should be:

This can also explain why Saturn moving into superior conjunction would experienced acceleration toward the Sun instead of deceleration, which is inexplicable with Newtonian physics.

For the details of the analysis on the aforementioned based on barycenter motion in a nested plasmasphere, please refer to a UVS section on "The interactions of isotropic push-in gravity in the superior and inferior conjunction of Sun, Jupiter and Saturn".
~ Vincent Wee-Foo

Enlightenment on the the paradoxical effect of nature enlightens.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests