Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

[Gray]

Hi Ray

I'm familiar with Vladimir's work, it's a very good overview. Maybe you haven't seen my earlier article on the outer planets:

http://www.jupitersdance.com/TheLastTango/

With the JS orbital figures Mars ties in with 19M 3J 2S.

From Wikipedia:
From empirical observations of transit dates, it appears that transits sometimes repeat after 13062.8 days (about 35 years and 9 months). This corresponds to 15.998 Mars-Jupiter synodic periods, or 19.01 Mars orbital periods, or 3.01 Jupiter orbital periods.

[Gray]

With the JS orbital figures Mars ties in with 19M 3J 2S.

Sorry, that should read 95M 15J 6S

[eclipse]

Planets frequencies (per tropical year)

Me 4.1519300472
Ve 1.6254601555
Ea 0.9999612064
Ma 0.5316638266
Ju 0.0842966434
Sa 0.0339580165
Ur 0.0119021207
Ne 0.0060681513
Pl 0.0040334625

Using these actually gives 835.56 years for 2*J-5*S

Wikipedia gives 29.4571 years for Saturn
The inverse of your figure is 29.4481

Paul Vaughan maintains it is 29.4730 over the longer term:

"Wikipedia had Saturn’s average period incorrectly listed as 29.657296 for quite some time. I made an effort to raise awareness of this many months ago – and I doubt I was the only one doing so. I see wiki has changed it to 29.4571.
I recommend:
For 3000BC to 3000AD: 29.4730378659417
For 1800-2050AD: 29.4506943235485
I base these numbers on NASA J2000 orbital elements. (I’ve taken the time to learn to do things like calculating osculating elements.)
I (crudely) estimate that Charvatova used 29.451 in some of her studies.
While the formerly-incorrect wiki 29.657296 has no effect on UN cycles, it has a profound effect on sidebands (generated by beats of harmonics). This is of practical importance – for example when decomposing series into JN, SN, & UN components – or when looking at the ‘camel humps’ Sharp looks at."

Laplace in the 1800's worked out that Saturn's orbit was growing slowly. Since the 'innate force' in planets orbital velocities can't increase, this leads Miles Mathis to the conclusion that Saturn had a close encounter with Jupiter some millions of years ago (20,000km or so) which produced a strong repulsion force due to their E/M fields which bounced Saturn outwards again.
http://milesmathis.com/laplace.html

[eclipse]

Ray,
Oliver Manuel turned up this letter to 'Nature':

“Is the Sun a pulsar?”
Peter Toth
Nature 270, 159 – 160 (10 November 1977)
doi:10.1038/270159a0]

The frequency of the solar originating signal detected in the earth's magnetosphere by the researcher is...

160 minutes.

[RayTomes]

“Is the Sun a pulsar?”

No. A pulsar is a neutron star. The Sun certainly is not.

[eclipse]

I'm open minded about Oliver Manuel's idea that the sun might be nucleated around the remnants of a supernova. The interesting question so far as I'm concerned is the cause of the 160 minute signal coming out of the sun, and the coincidence of that timing with your 160 minute lightspeed wave forming the nodes of the orbital radii of the gas Giants.

[RayTomes]

I'm open minded about Oliver Manuel's idea that the sun might be nucleated around the remnants of a supernova. The interesting question so far as I'm concerned is the cause of the 160 minute signal coming out of the sun, and the coincidence of that timing with your 160 minute lightspeed wave forming the nodes of the orbital radii of the gas Giants.

Note also that there are a bunch of oscillations centred on 5.5 minutes also, and that the inner planets are on the nodes of that wave.

Although the 160 minute wave comes out of the Sun, Russian astronomers have found that period in galaxy cores also. So it is a universal cycle that also feeds into the Sun. My own analysis of black hole masses found in galaxies gives them radii that are related to the 160 minute cycle (e.g. 80, 160, 240, 320 minutes).

[davesmith_au]

Although the 160 minute wave comes out of the Sun, Russian astronomers have found that period in galaxy cores also. So it is a universal cycle that also feeds into the Sun. My own analysis of black hole masses found in galaxies gives them radii that are related to the 160 minute cycle (e.g. 80, 160, 240, 320 minutes).

Ray might I suggest that, as the EU specifically refutes black holes, the "black hole masses" found in galaxies are more likely a plasmoid or some such feature, which has parameters which are related to the 160 minute cycle. I have a hunch that this cycling of not only our sun but also on a galactic scale has been written about by Wal Thornhill, perhaps a search on the holoscience site would be helpful.

Cheers, Dave.

[RayTomes]

Although the 160 minute wave comes out of the Sun, Russian astronomers have found that period in galaxy cores also. So it is a universal cycle that also feeds into the Sun. My own analysis of black hole masses found in galaxies gives them radii that are related to the 160 minute cycle (e.g. 80, 160, 240, 320 minutes).

Ray might I suggest that, as the EU specifically refutes black holes, the "black hole masses" found in galaxies are more likely a plasmoid or some such feature, which has parameters which are related to the 160 minute cycle. I have a hunch that this cycling of not only our sun but also on a galactic scale has been written about by Wal Thornhill, perhaps a search on the holoscience site would be helpful.

Dave, I cannot say whether they are actually black holes or just nearly so. I suspect that nearly black holes is a correct concept, and whenever I say black holes you can take it that I mean that.

The key concept I am after is that the ratio M/R is near to the black hole limit of c^2/G or whatever it is. The thing that I quote is the R part (as light minutes say) which depends on the M part. The masses are determined by orbital motion I think. I will try to find a way to express this in a brief manner that accords with EU concepts.

[junglelord]

Hi Ray, I think it would do you good to read the work of Stephen Crothers and Ric = 0

the Standard Model derivation of the alleged gravitational field for Rμν = 0. It begins with the usual spherical-polar coordinate line-element for Minkowski spacetime (using c = 1), given by

ds2 = dt2 - dr2 - r2 (dθ2 + sin2θ dφ2).
Note that there is no appearance of matter or energy in this expression, i.e. Special Relativity is not included. Then by generalising this expression subject to Einstein's equations Rμν = 0, the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" is obtained. But Rμν = 0 is due to the energy-momentum tensor being set to zero, which means that there is no mass or energy in the alleged gravitational field outside the supposed source of that field. So Minkowski spacetime, containing no matter and no energy, is transformed into a pseudo-Riemannian spacetime in which there are no masses and no energy. Thus, there is no transformation of the dynamics of Special Relativity and so Special Relativity cannot be recovered in a "freely falling" inertial frame in the spacetime of Rμν = 0. Thus, Rμν = 0 violates Einstein's 'Principle of Equivalence'. Further details can be obtained in my aforementioned paper.

What about my claim that "Schwarzschild's solution" is not Schwarzschild's solution? That is easily settled, by reading Schwarzschild's paper. Here is the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" (c = G = 1):


ds2 = (1 - 2m/r)dt2 - (1 - 2m/r)-1dr2 - r2(dθ2 + sin2θdφ2),
wherein r can go down to zero, one way or another, and m is the alleged mass of the source of the field. But here is Schwarzschild's real solution:


ds2 = (1 - α/R)dt2 - (1 - α/R)-1dR2 - R2(dθ2 + sin2θdφ2),

R = (r3 + α3)1/3,
0 < r < oo.

wherein Schwarzschild stated that the constant α is to be physically interpreted as a function of the mass of the source of the alleged gravitational field (based on the initial assumption however, that Rμν = 0 actually describes an Einstein gravitational field). He did not deduce the value of α because it cannot be done without introducing ad hoc arguments. In particular, Schwarzschild did not set α = 2m, and did not call it a radius. That was done ad hoc by the Standard Model relativists in order to fudge a Newtonian relationship, in the erroneous belief that since they have deduced a line-element for an Einstein gravitational field, there must be a source of that field, and so they insert the Newtonian potential to get it, ad hoc, not realising that they have merely inserted it and have inserted it as a centre of mass, so that it is not even in their alleged field (their line-element is undefined at r = 2m, and a centre of mass is not a physical object). Their introduced value 2m the Standard Modellers call the "Schwarzschild radius" of their black hole (.e. the "radius" of their alleged "event horizon"), and further claim that r can go down to zero, some way or another, in their line-element, down to an infinitely dense point-mass which they call the singularity of their black hole (where their line-element is again undefined), in violation of Special Relativity into the bargain, failing to realise that their point-mass actually occurs at their r = 2m, due to their ignorance of the mathematical fact that r is not even the geodesic radial distance from the centre of spherical symmetry of their line-element, but is only a "radius of curvature" by virtue of its formal geometric relationship to the Gaussian curvature (amplified in the next paragraph herein). Then, to get this black hole "singularity", they introduce the utterly nonsensical Kruskal-Szekeres "coordinates" to effectively drive r down to zero in their line-element. Reintroducing the usual values for c (speed of light in vacuo) and G (the Newtonian gravitational constant), the alleged "Schwarzschild radius" is 2Gm/c2, which describes the radius of the hypothetical Michell-Laplace Dark Body, a purely Newtonian concept, for which the escape velocity is the speed of light in vacuo. The Standard Modellers make great fanfare of their claim that their alleged solution for the "gravitational field" for Rμν = 0 obtains the radius of the Michell-Laplace Dark Body (their "Schwarzschild radius" for their black hole's "event horizon"). That is not surprising, since they actually inserted it, ad hoc, into their line-element in the first place - it is not and never was a deduction, because it is a fudge to get Newton. Furthermore, the Standard Modellers claim that although the Michell-Laplace Dark Body has an escape velocity, they also claim that in the case of their black hole nothing at all (including light) can even leave their alleged "event horizon", let alone escape. Thus, since nothing can leave or escape their black hole, it has no escape velocity. Nothwithstanding the foregoing, the constant α cannot be physically interpreted as a function of the mass of the source of the gravitational field because Rμν = 0 violates Einstein's 'Principle of Equivalence' and so does not describe Einstein's gravitational field to begin with. It is merely a mathematical constant, the value of which moderates the purely geometric characteristics of a pseudo-Riemannian metric manifold - a pure geometry - and when α is zero Minkowski spacetime is recovered - also a pure geometry. So how, Mr. Krasinski et al., have I not "understood"? One only needs to read Schwarzschild to see what is what. No, I have reported accurately. Most Standard Model relativists haven't even read Schwarzschild, and when given access to Schwarzschild's paper evidently choose not to read it, just like Galileo's detractors who refused to even look at the heavens through his telescope, clinging instead to their fantasies.


http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Ricci.html

[eclipse]

Hi Ray,

Don't know whether you followed any of the comments on my Blog, but Semi had something nice to say about your work on this thread:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/ ... ry-theory/

" Now I’ve reached to Mr. Ray Tomes page The Cause of the Sunspot Cycle and the explanation of J+N effect (at this blog also seen in Paul Vaughan’s charts) seems now much more probable and “meaningful”, so I appologize to P.V. for previous suspicion and congratulate to Ray Tomes for this explanation…"

As I see it, it's still the main contender for a viable physical mechanism.

[eclipse]

Hi Ray,

On the question of Earth's magnetic field reversals, this may be of interest to you.

http://www.physorg.com/news159704651.html

[eclipse]

Ray, Semi has a question for you:

I’m back here rather to dispute the theory of mr. Ray Tomes:

Quote from The Cause of the Sunspot Cycle :
> When Neptune is above, then Jupiter above the equator
> causes a sunspot maximum, and when Neptune is below
> then Jupiter below causes a maximum. This means that
> every 164.8 years there is one extra sunspot cycle than
> the number of times Jupiter goes around the sun

So, the rule “When Neptune is above, then Jupiter above the equator causes a sunspot maximum” just does not work at all. It rather seems the opposite, but not consistently enough to build a theory on it…

What about the Neptune near equator?

How do you actually get the 11-year cycle of Jupiter and Neptune? Subtracting their inclinations (relative to Solar equator) just leads to a 11.86 year wave on top of the 164-year wave of Nuptune. (what other function would best describe your “rule”?)

As they are both prograde, their frequencies probably never subtract, only add. What is a relation, that could subtract Jupiter and Neptune frequencies to get anything below 11.86 years, without using multi-millenia-long cycles?

I hope all is well with you.

Rog

[junglelord]

Hi Ray,

On the question of Earth's magnetic field reversals, this may be of interest to you.

http://www.physorg.com/news159704651.html

The quadrapole model vs the dipole model, its about time someone started working in quadrature.
Four wave mixer....phase conjugation...yes quadrapole magnetic field effects.

[RayTomes]

On the question of Earth's magnetic field reversals, this may be of interest to you.

http://www.physorg.com/news159704651.html

The quadrapole model vs the dipole model, its about time someone started working in quadrature.
Four wave mixer....phase conjugation...yes quadrapole magnetic field effects.[/quote]
Hi Junglelord

Yes, higher order symmetries exist for sure. When I analyzed Earthquake repetitions after short intervals looking for a dipole effect (the quake energy goes to opposite side of earth and returns) I found that dipole, quadrupole and octopole all exist. Earthquakes are largely e/m events. ELF/ULF are given off before and during quakes.

I am rather busy for the next little while, so will try to catch up with the various links people have suggested some time.

Regards
Ray