Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

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: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby RayTomes » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:55 pm

A fascinating new development that is closely related to this!

In case it isn't already clear, this whole thing depends on the motion of the sun in the N-S direction relative to the solar system barycentre. That is the only component that builds up its effect on the sun's core leading to sunspot formation and magnetic reversals.

A guy named tallbloke has given me a link to a graph he made comparing the z-component of the solar motion relative to solar system barycentre with LOD (Length Of Day) of the Earth. It is well known that the LOD shows variations that relate to solar activity, so this shows that the chain of events is very tight...

planets motion --> sun's motion relative to barycentre --> GR effect --> solar e/m variations --> LOD of Earth

I will invite him to join the forum here because he can surely ,make a big contribution.

This is so funny, I posted this message and got a reply "At least one new post has been made to this topic. You may wish to review your post in light of this." That post is the man himself. No need to invite him.
Ray Tomes
Web site : YouTube : Blog
User avatar
RayTomes
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:22 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby RayTomes » Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:09 pm

Tallbloke, welcome to Thunderbolts!

I am totally thrilled to have someone else taking up these ideas and doing real research that gets positive results. We need another ten like you.

eclipse wrote:...
The LOD changes lag behind the z axis changes by around 33 years.

Also, I found another correlation, but it doesn't seem physical, because the lag is the other way around. In this graph, there seems to be a relationship between solar activity levels and the z axis motion (yearly data smoothed over 24 years).
...
But, the sunspot data is 30 years ahead of the z axis data.

I need to look back at my research, because there are some lags in the system. When I compared the various cycles present in the solar motion to the sunspot numbers, the periods matched but the amplitudes did not. See an earlier post where I show the relationship between these. It strongly indicates a solar resonance with a period of about 10.5 years. But there is also the Q-factor of the resonance which is how accurately tuned the resonance is. The graph I give of that shows that about half effect happens at around 9 and 12 years, so that is +/- 1.5 years from the peak at 10.5 years. That means a Q-factor of about 7. That means that there is a memory of about 7*10.5 years or roughly 70 years in the Sun. This may be relevant to your search.

There is a 60 year cycle due to the great Jupiter-Saturn cycle whereby 5*J = 5*11.86 = 59.3 years is very close to 2*S = 2*29.46 = 58.9 years. Because J overtakes S every 20 years, every third conjunction happens in the same part of the sky. Except that the location gradually rotates a little until after 880 years it has moved by one third and the cycle restarts. This is called the great inequality and has large effects on planetary orbits.

I am seeing the two 30 year cycles as half these 60 year figures, but it might just be Saturn's period of 29.46 years.

eclipse wrote:The glitch around 1800-1830 is the Dalton Minimum, which may be due to a reverse in the angular momentum of the sun's barycentric orbit. The match seems too good to ignore, despite the apparent violation of cause and effect. Is this due to some resonance in the solar system we don't yet understand? I'd really appreciate your thoughts on this.


I put them ahead of the question - got excited it seems.
Ray Tomes
Web site : YouTube : Blog
User avatar
RayTomes
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:22 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby eclipse » Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:18 pm

Heh, the synchronicity is good. Thanks for the invite Ray, and sorry to crash in before I recieved it. :)
And I'm flattered by your praise, but you are the man.

Someone earlier on the thread linked the paper by Petr 'Semi' Semerov. Semi came and joined in the discussion of this paper I set up on my blog here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/ ... -p-a-semi/
You'll find a lot of great contributions also by Paul Vaughan and Geoff Sharp there too.

But I don't want to distract discussion of Ray's theory from here, the link is just for your information.

Right now I'd love to get Ray's thoughts on the apparent violation of causality in the second graph in my post at the bottom of page 1 of this thread. As Ray says, the ~60 year cycle seems pretty fundamental to our corner of the cosmos, so there must be several waves bouncing around. But how do changes in solar activity levels precede the planetary motions that apparently cause them by 30 years???

Edit to add, Our posts crossed again. I'll calm down, get some sleep and see what develops. Great to get to discuss this with you finally Ray.
eclipse
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:00 pm
Location: UK

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby RayTomes » Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:22 pm

eclipse wrote:...
Right now I'd love to get Ray's thoughts on the apparent violation of causality in the second graph in my post at the bottom of page 1 of this thread. As Ray says, the ~60 year cycle seems pretty fundamental to our corner of the cosmos, so there must be several waves bouncing around. But how do changes in solar activity levels precede the planetary motions that apparently cause them by 30 years???

Edit to add, Our posts crossed again. I'll calm down, get some sleep and see what develops. Great to get to discuss this with you finally Ray.

I don't know about the 30 years earlier.

And your graph also shows a third component ... is that temperature?

I would mention that temperature shows a cycle of long periods of about 53 years (according to Chivesky) but it has multiple periods (or modulation if you prefer) and might express at near to 60 years. At a conference at FSC (Foundation for the Study of Cycles) a speaker on long climate cycles (especially droughts) referred to 20, 60 and 180 year cycles. Of course these are connected with solar system periods:

19.86 years is Jupiter Saturn lap

59 years is 5*J and 2 *S or conjunctions in same part of sky. That is important in z motion of sun as a conjunction in a different part of sky may have opposite effect.

179 years is J-S-U-N good configuration period. Mentioned by many researchers also.

Now I mention several things that happened at different FSC conferences. At this one, I asked the guy if his periods were really a little less than 20, 60 and 180 (as he stated the actual dates when he predicted that droughts would start he was clearly using accurate figures). He confirmed the periods were less. I mentioned to him about the effects on the Sun and how this model was similar to COM motion of sun in that it was the vertical component which was modulated by a 2300 year (or is it 1150 years) cycle so that the other cycles would turn on and off over that period. He confirmed that he had evidence for such a thing and couldn't explain it previously.

At an earlier conference I was referring to 179 vs 171 year cycles. I called the 179 year cycle a "specific occurrence" because after that time the 4 giant planets are most similarly realigned. However after several 179 year cycles I explained that a 159 year cycle must be inserted. This is because the U-N lap is 171.4 years and otherwise these two cannot be part of the conjunctions. In fact conjunction get better and worse over a 2300 year cycle. Landscheidt got up and disagreed about this saying the cycle was a regular 179 years. He couldn't get it about the U-N inclusion and in the end the organizers made him sit down. A couple of years ago in response to my message on his blog, the guy that runs the Landscheidt site confirmed to me that he also found that over the longer period the 171 year cycle is the one to follow.

All this, because your graph shows a cycle of ~60 years. Almost certainly J-S cycle. This may be relevant to climate also, and this seems to provide the evidence for that.

I still probably haven't answered your question about 30 years. I will keep thinking about it, maybe an answer will come.
Ray Tomes
Web site : YouTube : Blog
User avatar
RayTomes
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:22 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby RayTomes » Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:31 pm

eclipse wrote:... and also(loosely) de-trended temperature data.

Image
...

Don't keep us in suspense! What does the green curve do next?
Global cooling is coming right? ;-)

Coincidentally I was writing a paper on climate cycles late last year and my disk drive died and I lost about 100 hours work. Have been slow redoing it all as for some weird reason the results were different.

There are temperature cycles of ~50-60 years, a bit over 200 years and ~2300 years. You can see the phase of the shorter cycle very clearly in temperature graphs - it peaks about 1998. The 200 year cycles is upwards for the whole 20th century - should be downwards now for 100 years. The 2300 year cycle is upwards for ages to come.

Note that the 2300 year cycle is the time that J-S-U-N all come back to a very similar alignment on average. The 208 year de Vries climate cycle doesn't really fit the 171 or 179 year planetary cycle. Don't know why. It may be to do with modulations.
Ray Tomes
Web site : YouTube : Blog
User avatar
RayTomes
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:22 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby RayTomes » Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:14 am

eclipse wrote:...
Someone earlier on the thread linked the paper by Petr 'Semi' Semerov. Semi came and joined in the discussion of this paper I set up on my blog here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/ ... -p-a-semi/
...

OK, I got the paper at http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Orbital_Resonance_and_Solar_Cycles.pdf and it has lots of solar system near resonances. In particular there is a graph of angular momentum summed over solar system in fig 76 which is interesting.

angular-momentum-J-S-57-880-year-cycles%.jpg


It shows clearly two cycles.

The longer one is around 880 years average and is the time at which Jupiter and Saturn return to having conjunctions in the same part of the sky after they have slowly moved around 1/3 of a circle. The actual conjunctions happen at nearly a third of a circle apart every 60 years about. However the location gradually moves so that the next 1/3 location eventually returns to the starting point in around 880 years.

The typical time for a J-S conjunction is 19.86 years, so that a set of three takes around 59.6 years. However the long term average period is actually 61.0 years after slight differences in 5*J and 2*S are allowed for.

I have never realized before that a period of 57 years occurs, but this is due to the 880 year modulation of the 61 year period.

If this graph is plotted upside down and interpreted as temperature, it gives a medieval warm period and a 20th century warm period also. That and a cool period in the a6th century. But it doesn't stop there. It also gives warm periods around the 1990s, 1930s and 1880s and cool periods around 1910 and 1970 which are all correct facts. Is there something in this?
Ray Tomes
Web site : YouTube : Blog
User avatar
RayTomes
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:22 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby eclipse » Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:52 am

I think you could be onto something there Ray. There is also the low around 1060AD, notoriously cold in the Northern hemispehere, and the low postwar, 1947 was a famously cold winter too.

Semi said on my blog:
"On the other hand, the chart of scalar sum is very similar to angular momentum of Jupiter alone, which could be partially transfered to Sun via magnetic forces or otherwise(?), so the 854-year Jupiter-Saturn cycle compared with the climatic chart is not a complete nonsense. The high spikes on that (scalar) chart are times of “Retrograde Sun” – the times, when the Sun moves very close to the SSB and crosses arround it in the opposite direction, so it’s angular momentum is opposite to planets and it subtracts from the total for a short while in vector sum."
And
"Hello. Discovered a major error in my work, that the Jupiter/Saturn cycle is not 854 years (as mentioned on many places in my work), but rather arround 934 years! (Discovered this while wanting to argue with Mr. Gray’s JupiterDance page, that states 795 years, so I went to double-check my value)."

More later, have to go out.
eclipse
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:00 pm
Location: UK

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby davesmith_au » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:00 am

Well Ray and tallbloke, an interesting reunion on the Thunderbolts forum...


Ray wrote:A couple of years ago in response to my message on his blog, the guy that runs the Landscheidt site confirmed to me that he also found that over the longer period the 171 year cycle is the one to follow.


That guy you wrote to was my late brother Carl Smith, who passed away last year after a bout with a very aggressive cancer. Geoff Sharp (who tallbloke mentioned) has now taken over Carl's work, and has started a new site at http://www.landscheidt.info and he has a forum there you may want to follow up on.

Carl seems to have taken Landscheidt's work and improved on it, revolutionising the way planetary motions are calculated. I wish I knew more about his work, but it was way over my own head... Anyhow, nice to have you both on board.

Cheers, Dave.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby eclipse » Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:15 pm

Dave, thanks for your welcome. it was the assistance Carl provided to Ray in his thread on this subject on another forum which enabled me to get to grips with some data and start discovering things for myself. Geoff is dedicated to carrying Carl's work forward and I'm proud to be doing the same. Your brother was a man with a rare clarity of vision and purpose, and willingness to share knowledge. We want to honour those principles he held and work towards a better understanding of Cosmos. Ray is another beacon of light in the general gloom created by the pedantry and obscurantism engendered by the institutionalisation of cosmology, and I hope we can make some further progress here.
eclipse
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:00 pm
Location: UK

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby eclipse » Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:37 pm

Ray, one of the potential objections to your idea of a vertically shifting solar core that I came across was that it would be evident in a latitudinal shifting of the orbit of Mercury. I followed up on that by asking the astronomers on BAUT and it turned into quite an informative thread:
http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronom ... fined.html

I'd be interested to hear your interpretation of the info which came out of that exchange.

It did lead me to some heretical thoughts which for obvious reasons (obvious to those who have frequented BAUT anyway) I didn't voice, concerning the possible contribution your vertical core motion might have on the precession of Mercury's perihelion. I'm sure you get my drift... ;)
eclipse
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:00 pm
Location: UK

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby eclipse » Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:53 pm

RayTomes wrote:Don't keep us in suspense! What does the green curve do next?
Global cooling is coming right? ;-)



Right. If my sunspot number-ocean heat content model is anywhere near right, the cooling won't be drastic at first, even if we get Dalton Minimum type solar sleepiness. But the longer it goes on, the more rapid the cooling would be. No big panic though, we're only talking a three quarters of a degree or so over 20 years.

The blue curve out to 2050 on the other graph in my first post at the bottom of page 1 should give an idea on solar activity if we don't get a deep minimum. In terms of temperature, we'd need to factor in the 30 year negative phase of the oceanic cycle which is coincident with changes in length of day. I'm still fiddling with the parameters but once I'm happy I'll post an updated chart with forecast to 2080.

The current chart can be seen here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/ ... rgy-model/
No prediction, but you can see how well (or not) it hindcasts.
eclipse
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:00 pm
Location: UK

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby RayTomes » Sat Jan 30, 2010 2:12 pm

Hi Tallbloke
eclipse wrote:...
"Hello. Discovered a major error in my work, that the Jupiter/Saturn cycle is not 854 years (as mentioned on many places in my work), but rather arround 934 years! (Discovered this while wanting to argue with Mr. Gray’s JupiterDance page, that states 795 years, so I went to double-check my value)."
...

One of the things that I addressed in my 1990 paper http://cyclesresearchinstitute.org/tomes/tomes_unified_cycles.pdf was what I referred to as "specific occurrences" and "average length" cycles. With regard to the J-S-U-N cycle, 179 years is a specific occurrence while 171.4 years is the long term average, Actual cycles most nearly repeat after 179, 179, 159, 179, 159, 179 ... years. So the average is 171.4 (as it must be for U-N to keep aligning) while the specific occurrences are 179 and 159 (actually these figures vary quite a bit due to eccentricities). For the J-S system the figures that you are quoting might just be specific occurrences. Looking at this graphic again...
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=1390&mode=view
... we see that the two longer cycles have lengths of about 910 and 850 years respectively because they are made up of 16 and 15 of the shorter 57 year cycle respectively. So the periods ~910 and ~850 are what I call specific occurrences. The average grand cycle for J-S repeats is close to 880 years as far as I know.

Hi Dave
davesmith_au wrote:...
Ray wrote:A couple of years ago in response to my message on his blog, the guy that runs the Landscheidt site confirmed to me that he also found that over the longer period the 171 year cycle is the one to follow.


That guy you wrote to was my late brother Carl Smith, who passed away last year after a bout with a very aggressive cancer. Geoff Sharp (who tallbloke mentioned) has now taken over Carl's work, and has started a new site at http://www.landscheidt.info and he has a forum there you may want to follow up on.

Carl seems to have taken Landscheidt's work and improved on it, revolutionising the way planetary motions are calculated. I wish I knew more about his work, but it was way over my own head... Anyhow, nice to have you both on board.

Oh wow! Thanks for that info. So many people that we meet on internet only are just individuals floating in the void. It is great to get some more connections as real people. Sorry to hear that Carl is departed. I made some further comments on 171 vs 179 year cycle above.

eclipse wrote:... I hope we can make some further progress here.

Yes, lets! I am not sure that anyone else here has got what I am on about with these calculations on the planets effect on the Sun. If you are able to give an alternative explanation that makes it clearer to others that would be most welcome.

I do think that these matters are rather important for uniting the electromagnetic and gravitational aspects of nature. In our collective works we are showing that solar electromagnetic phenomena are intimately connected to gravitational events and vice versa (the LOD for example). The result can be a proper understanding where E/M takes its rightful place.

eclipse wrote:Ray, one of the potential objections to your idea of a vertically shifting solar core that I came across was that it would be evident in a latitudinal shifting of the orbit of Mercury. I followed up on that by asking the astronomers on BAUT and it turned into quite an informative thread:
http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronom ... fined.html

I'd be interested to hear your interpretation of the info which came out of that exchange.

It did lead me to some heretical thoughts which for obvious reasons (obvious to those who have frequented BAUT anyway) I didn't voice, concerning the possible contribution your vertical core motion might have on the precession of Mercury's perihelion. I'm sure you get my drift... ;)

I never saw this one before. It must have been after my demise at BAUT. ;-)

It may be that the position of Mercury can be measured to 0.3 km accuracy, but the position of the Sun cannot. See the recent info in this forum about hills on the Sun (related to sunspots) that are 6 km high and are only just now being shown to exist. And it is the Sun that is being affected by the other planets. Even then, it is the core that is moving differently to standard theory and not the outside. So we would see next to nothing happen.

I very much doubt that there are observable consequences of this, even on Mercury precession, but I might be wrong.

eclipse wrote:...
Right. If my sunspot number-ocean heat content model is anywhere near right, the cooling won't be drastic at first, even if we get Dalton Minimum type solar sleepiness. But the longer it goes on, the more rapid the cooling would be. No big panic though, we're only talking a three quarters of a degree or so over 20 years.
...

This is similar to my (lost due to disk drive crash) calculations based on historic cycles. They showed:
~54 year cycle maxima about 1998, minima 2025, maxima 2052
~208 year cycle maxima about 2000, minima about 2100
~2300 year cycle, minima ~1650, maxima not until 2800.
So my prediction was for slight downward until 2025, then slight upward to 2052 and so on with big increase starting around 2100.
Ray Tomes
Web site : YouTube : Blog
User avatar
RayTomes
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:22 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby RayTomes » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:48 pm

I have been looking at trying to do the calculations for the Earth effect due to GR planets effect acting on the earth's interior (which is hotter and therefore has more photons and is affected slightly different to the surface). The calculations are more tricky and need to be done over many millions of years, but the programs exist to do this. As a step in this direction have a look at this:

The same people that calculated long term insolation cycles for Earth (related to Milankovitch cycles) have done the same for Mars. The graph on their web site clearly shows long term cycles which I have added in red to their graphic. See http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/insola/mars/mars.html

The periods of the cycles are around about 1.17, 2.35 and 8.8 million years. That is interesting because previously I found cycles in Earth Magnetic field reversals of 1.11 and 9 million years. I think that these are the same cycles with just slightly different measures of them. I previously read of a 1.11 million year energy exchange cycle between Jupiter and Neptune. These are all surely connected.

These cycles give strong support to the idea that magnetic reversals are predictable, and that the mechanism that I proposed for explaining solar magnetic reversals will also work for the earth. Of course it needs to be checked out that Earth is subject to these same cycles.

mars-insolation-cycles-1.17-2.35-8.8-my%.jpg
Mars orbital parameters variation cycles
Ray Tomes
Web site : YouTube : Blog
User avatar
RayTomes
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:22 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby RayTomes » Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:24 pm

Following on from my previous post about Mars insolation cycles, here is the first of the Earth related orbital parameter changes showing cycles. This comes from the paper:

A long-term numerical solution for the insolation quantities of the Earth, by Laskar et al, A&A Volume 428, Number 1, December II 2004
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2004/46/aa1335.pdf

A 2.35 million year period is also evident in the Earth's eccentricity. Previously mention has been made of the 100,000 year and 405,000 year cycles, but the 2.35 MY year cycle has not been mentioned.

earth-eccentricity-2.35-my-cycle%.jpg
Earth eccentricity variation over millions of years shows cycles of 100 KY, 405 KY and 2.35 MY
Ray Tomes
Web site : YouTube : Blog
User avatar
RayTomes
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:22 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby eclipse » Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:37 pm

RayTomes wrote:The average grand cycle for J-S repeats is close to 880 years as far as I know.

Well that seems to average the two values Semi came up with nicely. When it comes to long cycles, I trust your analysis.

RayTomes wrote: If you are able to give an alternative explanation that makes it clearer to others that would be most welcome.

I've made a start on a simple outlining of what we have come to call 'Solar-Planetary Theory' here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/ ... ry-theory/
With the first installment of a history here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/ ... f-history/

RayTomes wrote: In our collective works we are showing that solar electromagnetic phenomena are intimately connected to gravitational events and vice versa (the LOD for example). The result can be a proper understanding where E/M takes its rightful place.

I'm hoping the people on this site can help us forward with understanding the magnitude of electrical effects within the solar system, and we in our turn can help provide a local context which will assist a more universal understanding. The solar system is "our neck of the woods" and our extended laboratory. Understanding starts within and spreads.

RayTomes wrote:I never saw this one before. It must have been after my demise at BAUT. ;-)
It may be that the position of Mercury can be measured to 0.3 km accuracy, but the position of the Sun cannot. See the recent info in this forum about hills on the Sun (related to sunspots) that are 6 km high and are only just now being shown to exist. And it is the Sun that is being affected by the other planets. Even then, it is the core that is moving differently to standard theory and not the outside. So we would see next to nothing happen.


It was after you left. I was following up your hypothesis and trying to get some idea of how we might validate or falsify it.
The hills are caused by magnetism in the region of sunspots according to the authors, but I think there's more to it. I emailed the scientists asking for the date and longitudes relating to their plot. No reply.
I agree, the surface layers of the sun are highly mobile, and the gravitation is super strong. The matter displaced by your moving core would soon be pulled into line in the form of meridional flows. I think a better understanding of that might explain the faster motion of the Sun's equatorial regions relative to the poles.

RayTomes wrote:This is similar to my (lost due to disk drive crash) calculations based on historic cycles. They showed:
~54 year cycle maxima about 1998, minima 2025, maxima 2052
~208 year cycle maxima about 2000, minima about 2100
~2300 year cycle, minima ~1650, maxima not until 2800.
So my prediction was for slight downward until 2025, then slight upward to 2052 and so on with big increase starting around 2100.


There is this graph you produced still on BAUT
http://ray.tomes.biz/global-temp-cycles-human.png

It really brasssed off some BAUTers. 8-)

It's late, more tomorrow.
eclipse
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:00 pm
Location: UK

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests