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

Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby RayTomes » Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:58 am

I am not sure if this is the right part of the Thunderbolts forum for the topic of:
Explaining Planetary Alignments as the cause of the Sunspot Cycle
Please excuse me if it is not the right place.

I have presented this material before at the Foundation for the Study of Cycles in 1990, on usenet groups in sci.physics about 1992-3, at a conference in Crimea in about 1996 and in BAUT astronomy forum in 2004. This material is gathered from these other presentations and I hope that it will add to the understanding of electric forces in the Universe.

Although this presentation is concerned with the development of the Solar 22 year magnetic cycle, exactly the same arguments also apply to the Earth's magnetic field and there is considerable evidence that a complete explanation of magnetic reversals is possible. The case of the Earth is more difficult however as the calculations involve many millions of years of planetary motion calculations.

First a bit of background about theories of planetary influences on the solar cycle, before I put forward a new proposal. Well, it isn't strictly new as I worked this out about 1990 and shortly after.

In the 1960s and 1970s there were a number of proposals regarding how planetary alignments might influence the Sun and explain variations in Sunspot numbers. Actually the tidal proposal was made as early as the 1800s but seems to have been totally forgotten about. These proposals fall into three main categories and I give one main reference for each category.

1. The tidal hypothesis(1). We know that on Earth the moon and sun cause tides and that we get bigger tides at new moon and full moon when the sun and moon come together to cause the largest tides, so tides are reasonably well understood things. It is important to remember that there are two tides raised, on on the same side as the body and one on the opposite side. That is why the tides forming from two bodies are maximal both when they come together and when they are opposite each other. When it comes to the Sun, the planets which create the largest tides are Jupiter and Venus, with Earth and Mercury not to far back. However we can study the tidal effects due to any pair of planets by looking at the number of sunspots as a function of the position in the synodic cycle of those two planets. Because the inner planets plus Jupiter have the biggest tidal effects, the shorter periods predominate in the tidal hypothesis, although a study of syzygys(4) will show that more complex nearly repeating configurations get many things right about the sunspot cycle. The syzygy proposal has a number of successes because it predicts that the average sunspot period will be 11.07 years and it is actually 11.08, and that the distribution will be bimodal with periods clustered near 10.4 and 12.0 years which is also correct. These studies are based on correlations, and although we know how to calculate tides, we do not know what mechanisms might get from tides to sunspots.

2. The Sun's motion relative to the COM (Centre of Mass) of the solar system has been proposed(2) as an explanation of sunspots or at least of longer term sunspot modulations of the order of 180 years and others. Although it is perfectly true that the Sun does do loops in space as a result of the outer planet motions, it was never clear to me what physical effect this was supposed to have. Recently however I saw this described as the Sun moving through its own magnetic field which does sound plausible. The Sun does move about by distances of the order of its own size. This proposal has been popular with those studying climate cycles in the hundred to few thousand year range. The main planets in order of effect are Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus.

3. The third mechanism was proposed by Bigg(3) who also gave explanations for Jupiter's activity based on its moons. As I remember it (not very well) his proposal depended on torques which set up convection currents.

4. My proposal, and the intended subject of this thread is that a previously ignored GR effect by planets on radiation and relativistic matter in the Sun's core causes slight convection cells in the solar interior leading to a varying amount of heat reaching the surface and to the production of magnetic fields. I will deal with the treatment of this GR effect mathematically in a following post, simply outlining the general flow of effects in this post.

When Einstein first worked out GR, one early prediction that was proven correct and helped lead to GR being accepted was that light from stars that passed very close to the Sun (and could be observed during a Solar eclipse) would be bent twice as much as predicted by the Newtonian theory. The fact that radiation is more strongly affected by gravity than ordinary matter at non-relativistic velocities is the basis of my proposal. I will show that actually over all random directions of motion of radiation in the solar core, the average effect is 5/3 times. For now, I will make the assumption that radiation in the solar core (as an ensemble of mass) is accelerated by 5/3 times as much as non-relativistic matter and that there is a similar effect on the relativistic component of matter in the Sun also. I think that there may be some controversy over this part of the proposal, but the rest follows in a manner that is much less likely to be debated. Even if you reject what I have just stated here, I ask you to consider the rest of the proposal. If you find that it does lead to interesting results then you might want to come back and see whether there is something in this part after all.

What would the consequence of such acceleration be?

Because there is a greater proportion of radiation and relativistic matter in the solar core than in the Sun's outer layers, any acceleration by the outer planets would be trying to move the core relative to the outside of the the sun. Naturally various factors would prevent the middle of the sun coming loose in this way, but at least a convection pattern would be set up with the central region traveling towards the accelerating object and the outer layers traveling away (relatively speaking). Of course the effect is quite a small one, but remember that the sun does move about due to planetary forces by about its own size, so that the radiation part would be trying to move about twice as much. Because the radiation and relativistic mass content is quite a small proportion of the sun's mass, the effect is correspondingly reduced.

When I first did the calculations for this I made the assumption that the most important forces were in the plane of the planets orbits and ignore the "z axis" or direction towards the poles. That was a big mistake which I realized after a year or so. To make sense of that mistake it is necessary to know that the sun's poles are tilted about 7 degrees to the main plane of the planets orbits. The planets are constantly pulling on the suns interior at a different rate to the outside, but this effect is being undone by the sun rotating. After 13 days or so, the forces are pulling that radiation that was pulled outwards back toward the centre again. Or are they? Allowing for the tilt of the sun's axis, all the components of the acceleration get canceled out by rotation except the component in the polar direction. That component continues to build up into a convection current that flows (at one time) northward in the interior and southward on the outside, and then reverses at some future time.

The important thing in this proposal is not the direction of the planets relative to the Sun, but how far they are north or south of the Sun's equator.

I have calculated the magnitude of this current taking account of the planets motions over several hundreds of years. A cycles analysis of those results shows that a number of specific periods are present generally being the same periods as in the COM hypothesis. Not only that but the total force is actually remarkably similar to the COM hypothesis due to several amazing coincidences, but there is also a difference.

First the coincidences. The four major planets have orbits near the same plane. That means that when they are at their greatest distance north of the sun's equator, they are all near the same longitude, and likewise for south. So we think alignment is important but it actually N-S distance relative to the Sun.

Second coincidence. The dependency of this effect is quite different to the COM dependency, but it turns out to be equivalent when Kepler's law about period and distance is applied! However it has one big difference here. If the planets align when they are at the N or S extremes of their orbits relative to the sun's equator then there is a strong effect, however if they align when they are on the suns equator then there is no effect at all. I explained this to a climatologist once who was working with 20, 60 and 180 year cycles (intimately connected with Jupiter and Saturn and other outer planets alignments) and said that it would mean that all those cycles are modulated by a 2300 year cycle relating to where the alignments happen. He told me that the 2300 year cycle (already known as a climate cycle) did indeed modulate these cycles and he could never work out why because he thought the COM was right.

Anyway I digressed, but it is important to establish which of these causes has effects in which cycle period ranges and how important each is.

The cycles periods that I predicted did match the cycles periods found in the sun over a similar period of time. However there was one big difference between the two and that was the amplitudes calculated and observed. The amplitudes of cycles near 10.5 years was high but those far from that period were low, with a typical resonance response curve easily fitted to the ratio of observed to expected amplitudes.

Clearly this means that this proposal works only if the Sun has some natural resonance of 10.5 years and all of these forces are activating that resonance. Based on that further assumption, I could calculate sunspot numbers over several centuries with a correlation of r=0.66 from the planetary forces.

Such a model can also explain such events as the Maunder minimum if the planetary forces happen to bring the resonance to almost a standstill. However it is clear that this is an unusual condition.

I think that this is long enough for my opening statement. I will post two additional explanations in the near future. One will be the table of planets periods and the sizes of their effects according to the various different proposals. The other will be how to calculate the GR effect of the planets on the Sun.

Incidentally this effect does not apply only to the Sun. All bodies are affected in similar ways if their interior is warmer than their exterior because there is then some relativistic mass content variation with depth. Because electrons generally move faster than other stuff (except radiation) they will be especially affected, and we might even consider that this is an explanation for the whole cause of magnetic fields.

In the case of the Earth, the magnetic field is generally stated to not have any periodicity present in the reversals. However that is misleading because we need to look at the amplitude of the field as well, and it is clear that there are two long periods that are easily visible in the Earth's magnetic field reversals, 1.11 million years and 9 million years.

For the Earth the proportion of time that the planets spend north and south of our equator is important. That depends on the relative motion of the orientation of the Earth' ellipse in space (as we spend more time at the far end of the ellipse from the Sun) with respect to the nodes of the orbital inclination relative to the invariant plane of the solar system.

Adequate accuracy exists in the earth's orbital calculations to now test this hypothesis. Calculations over 23 million years of the orbits of the solar system are now used for dating geological deposits based on the ~400,000 year Milankovich cycle. I do know that other long term calculations show a 1.11 million year cycle of energy exchange between Jupiter and Neptune, so it would not be at all surprising if that period should show up in the earth's orbital elements and be responsible for the Earth magnetic field reversal.

(1) Wood, R. M. & Wood, K. D. Nature 208, 129–131 (1965).

(2) Jose, P. D. Astr. J. 70, 193–200 (1965).

(3) Bigg, E. K. Astr. J. 72, 463–466 (1967).

(4) Jean-Pierre Desmoulins - Sunspot cycles are they caused by Venus, Earth and Jupiter syzygies?
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jpdesm/sunspots/sun.html

Details on the calculations follow in my next post.
Last edited by RayTomes on Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:00 am

Not being a GR expert, I may slightly falter in explaining the equations of this calculation. However I am confident that the result is correct if the correct jargon can be found. The essential point is that gravity affects radiation (and probably also the relativistic content of matter) by a greater amount than it affects non-relativistic matter. I believe that the correct proportion is 5/3 times as much when summed over all possible directions, being 2x in the four directions that are transverse to the direction of the body that causes the gravity and 1x in the two directions radially.

In a following post I will deal with the equations of momentum transfer. For now I will show that the effects are of sufficient magnitude to be a factor in solar output variations and possibly the magnetic field effects.

Horizontal radiation is bent 2x as much as in Newtonian gravity as predicted by Einstein and as measured. For a light ray that just skims the Sun's surface the effect is measured as 1.75" as against Newtons 0.875". Change of direction for light represents change of the momentum vector. If a light ray in the Sun is traveling transversely to Jupiter's direction, then it will be bent at a rate that is 1/1000* 1/1000^2 as fast as a light ray passing the Sun. The first 1000 factor results from the fact that Jupiter is that much less massive than the Sun. The additional two factors come from the fact that Jupiter is 1000 times as far away from the Sun as the Sun's surface is from its core. So we find that light in the Sun's core is being bent at a rate that is a billionth of the rate that it gets bent as it passes the Sun. An that was a tiny 1.75" of arc. So we are now down to about 0.0000000017" of arc bending. But it is not zero. :-)

There are some extra factors to reduce the result of that tiny effect. At any one time the radiation content of the Sun is something like 1 part in 10^7 of its total mass or energy content. See http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/72252-how-long-does-light-take-centre-sun-its-surface.html. So when we are considering the difference in acceleration of the photonic content in the solar core (where the proportion is this 1 part in 10^7) and the surface where it is vastly less, the resulting acceleration will be about another 7 orders of magnitude less. We now have 0.00000000000000017" of arc bending each few seconds. The few seconds comes from the time that a photon is near the Sun in the famous Eclipse experiment.

Now we are almost ready to start on the the other side of the equation. There is one more factor to divide by, one more order of magnitude, due to the fact that the gas giants orbit at an angle of about 7 degrees to the Sun's equator. So they can spend long periods N or S of that equator. When they are N of the equator, the extra acceleration of the planet on the interior is towards the Planet, but then the Sun is rotating and so 13 days later most of the acceleration is undone by the same planet. However the component in the N or S direction is not undone. That component is about 1/10th. So the final figure for the extra acceleration on the internal part of the Sun per few seconds is 0.000000000000000017" of arc bending.

So what is the other side of the equation that could possibly compete with all those zeros? The answer is that the acceleration of the core of the Sun in a N or S direction by say Jupiter takes place in the same direction for 6 years at a time. Unlike the bending of light during an eclipse when the main action takes about 6 seconds. The equation for how far something gets moved by a constant acceleration is s = 1/2 a t^2 although in both cases the acceleration is not constant, rising from zero to a maximum and then falling away to zero again. However the proportion is correct. The effect of Jupiter is for a period about 30,000,000 times longer and due to the t^2 factor, the result in terms of actual movement is 10^15 times as much. So we take our little 0.000000000000000017" and knock 15 zeros off it and get 0.017" which is no longer quite so tiny. If we express this in radians it is about 10^-7 radians now something measurable.

Actually we can calculate the morion of the solar interior by a simpler more obvious means. Due to the outer planets the Sun moves about the COM by something like its own size over periods of the order of a decade. Just by applying the 10^-7 factor for the proportion of radiation and the 1/10 factor for the effect in the N or S direction we can find that the solar core will be moved by about 0.01 km N and S over a few decades. That may not sound like a lot, but the temperature gradient of the Sun is about 20 degrees per km and so that small movement should cause variations in the temperature at the poles of around 0.2 degrees. Remember also that radiation produced is the 4th power of temperature so this would cause a variation in radiation at the Sun's surface of about 0.015%.

Up until now I have only addressed the gravity effects on radiation. However teh effects on relativistic matter are also important. This may be a controversial matter as regards GR and some experts disagree. However Birkhoff says that it also applies to matter.

Anyway, the matter component may be several orders of magnitude higher than the radiation component. I think most important is that electrons have much higher velocities than nuclei in the solar core and so are more relativistic. Therefore there will be additional differential acceleration* applicable to this.

* By differential acceleration I mean that the centre of the sun is affected more than the surface due to its differing relativistic content.
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 » Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:05 am

Paper presented in 1990 at Foundation for the Study of Cycles
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/tomes/tomes_unified_cycles.pdf
This is a long paper and only part of it is relevant to this discussion.

Old articles from my web site:
http://ray.tomes.biz/rt104.htm A New Definition: Pull
http://ray.tomes.biz/rt106.htm The Cause of the Sunspot Cycle
(note that the email address at the bottom of these articles is way out of date)

The thread on this in BAUT forum is at http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/72665-explaining-planetary-alignments-relationship-sunspot-cycle.html
Last edited by RayTomes on Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:16 am

Although the article deals with the solar cycle, I was inclined to post this because of another thread asking about Earth's rapid magnetic pole motion at present. In the case of the Earth, the magnetic reversals are usually said to be irregular. However there are some distinctively cyclical elements in the reversals.

magnetic-reversals-periodicity%.gif
Reversals of Earth's Magentic field show 1.11 and ~9 million year cycles.


The interesting aspect of this is that it is known that the solar system undergoes a cycle of 1.11 million years which is a huge energy exchange between Jupiter and Neptune. Inevitably this would affect the Earth also.

The issue with the calculations is that what is of interest is to what extent the sun and planets are above or below the Earth's rotational equator. Because of precession this plane is always moving and so some sort of average must be found. A very long period integration must be done to solve the problem. But this cycle is a huge hint that the answer will come out.
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 junglelord » Wed Jan 27, 2010 3:14 pm

I am constantly amazed at the depth of your knowledge Ray.
Very impressive.
I am still learning about certain harmonic ratios between the planets and the different cycles that exist.
Wheels in Wheels, a Sprial Array, a Pattern so Grand and Complex.
:D
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby seasmith » Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:10 pm

Some Periodicities in the Solar system
compared with Sunspot cycle


(by P.A.Semi, 2009-2010)


Lots of graphs

http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Periodicities_in_the_Solar_system__Draft-current.pdf

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

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby moses » Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:54 pm

Although the article deals with the solar cycle, I was inclined to post this because of another thread asking about Earth's rapid magnetic pole motion at present. In the case of the Earth, the magnetic reversals are usually said to be irregular. However there are some distinctively cyclical elements in the reversals. Ray

In the past the Earth was in a very different orbit to today. Or electrical conditions were very much greater, and basically what we are seeing in Earth's magnetic field is a slow decay of field strength. Either way, it was the surrounding environment of Earth that produced the magnetic signature features, called reversals. So the periodicities found in these 'reversals' are probably orbitally produced.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby RayTomes » Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:06 am

seasmith wrote:Some Periodicities in the Solar system compared with Sunspot cycle
(by P.A.Semi, 2009-2010)
Lots of graphs
http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Periodicities_in_the_Solar_system__Draft-current.pdf

Thanks seasmith, that is interesting.

I should state that I began more than 45 years ago investigating the tidal hypothesis and there are very definite correlations. The J-V-E syzygies (see ref in first post) are known to average 11.07 years, within 0.01 years of true susnspot cycle average. Also, they predict a bimodal distribution of cycle lengths with peaks near 10.38 and 12.00 years. The actual distribution is bimodal with peaks very close to these figures. And yet there seems to be more to the sunspot cycle.

The GR effect that I raise can predict the sunspot numbers with correlation of 0.66 if a natural resonance of the Sun around 10.5 years is assumed.
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 mague » Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:25 am

Ray, what are your thoughts about planetary rotation ?

I am thinking not only of bodies inside the heliosphere, but also outside of it. There have been hypotheses that there is not only the 11/22 cycle but also a 70 year and a 400 year cycle.

The NOAA reconstruction could induce another 8000 year cycle with its peak at 4000BC.


On aside note: Isnt it funny that Christoph Scheiner wasnt touched for his theory that a passing planet caused the spots while Galilei got into trouble for his theory ?
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby RayTomes » Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:36 am

Hi Mague
mague wrote:Ray, what are your thoughts about planetary rotation ?

I am thinking not only of bodies inside the heliosphere, but also outside of it. There have been hypotheses that there is not only the 11/22 cycle but also a 70 year and a 400 year cycle.

The NOAA reconstruction could induce another 8000 year cycle with its peak at 4000BC.

There are many different solar cycles ranging from very short periods to very long ones. In this thread I am mainly concerned with the 11 / 22 year cycle, and a few modulations of this due to other less dominant cycles in a similar range. Just for the record, some of the other cycles:

3 to 11 minutes: The so called 5 minute oscillations, with the strongest modes between 5 and 6 minutes. See "gong project". These are sound waves withing the sun echoing about. Years ago I examined the beats (musical term) between these modes and found a fascinating structure that also relates to the following item here. IMO, these modes are intimately connected with the inner planets because a standing wave centred on the Sun with period 5.8 minutes has nodes at 2.9 light minute intervals which approximates the inner planet spacings.
http://gong.nso.edu/
http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/Sem ... /helio.htm
http://ray.tomes.biz/rt127.htm

160 and 80 minutes (also 40 and 20 minutes?): There is a solar oscillation with period 160 minutes. There was debate over whether it was real because it was so near to exactly 1/9 of an Earth day. It is real. See especially papers by Russian astronomer Kotov. Russian astronomers have also found 160 minute cycles in galaxy cores and other places. Binary stars, planets and other objects favour rotation periods that are multiples and fractions of this period.
http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=160+mi ... d+OR+cycle)
Notice that I answered your planet rotation period here. Actually the planets rotate in periods that favour a*n^2 where n is a small integer and a is either 160 minutes or 6.45 days (1/4 of solar siderial rotation rather than 1/4 of rotation as seen from earth).

28, 14, 7 and 3.5 days: The sun rotates in about 26 days (it varies with latitude, depth and the solar cycle). As the earth is moving around the sun we see the rotation period as 28 days as the sun has to catch up to us. Electromagnetically these periods are very important for space weather reaching the earth. Every ~28 days the same part of the sun is under the earth. However the solar equator has zone of neutrality between N and S influence that is shaped a bit like a tennis ball seam, crossing the rotational equator 4 times (or sometimes 2, 6 or 8 times). Because the solar wind can carry charged particles much more easily in the neutral zone, we get bursts of e/m activity every 28/4 days (or sometimes 28/2 or 28/8). IMO this 7 day period is the true origin of the week because weather tends to repeat on this cycle.
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Heliosph ... rent_sheet

155, 77, 52, 26-28 days: There are many fluctuations in the sun with these periods, including even neutrino emissions.
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/ ... 154day.pdf

All the sunspot related cycles mentioned previously here. Dominant mode is 11.08 years with side peaks at ~9.9 years and ~11.9 years. The beats make longer cycles. Note, 11 years is period of sunspot maxima, 22 years of the full magnetic cycle as N-S poles reverse every 11 years. So the sun is transmitting huge e/m waves of period 22 years. Wars come and go with period 11, 22 and other figures also. Human brain is affected by this cycle and its modulation of Schumann resonance I think.

Longer modulations of 11 year cycle, variously reported as 50-60 years, 77-90 years and 170-210 years and longer. An analysis of the 11,400 year time series that you mention shows many periods.

ssn11400sa%.gif
Spectrum of 11,400 year "reconstructed sunspot numbers" series.

The numbers are periods in years of peaks in the spectrum.

Interestingly the Milankovitch cycles may also be solar cycles. Periods 400,000 years, 100,000 years, 41,000 years and 23,000 years. Mostly strongly modulated also. These cause ice ages and so have dramatic effects on the Earth.
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 junglelord » Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:36 am

3 to 11 minutes: The so called 5 minute oscillations, with the strongest modes between 5 and 6 minutes. See "gong project". These are sound waves withing the sun echoing about. Years ago I examined the beats (musical term) between these modes and found a fascinating structure that also relates to the following item here. IMO, these modes are intimately connected with the inner planets because a standing wave centred on the Sun with period 5.8 minutes has nodes at 2.9 light minute intervals which approximates the inner planet spacings.
http://gong.nso.edu/
http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/Sem ... /helio.htm
http://ray.tomes.biz/rt127.htm


Man I love that stuff.
Way to go Ray.
Your the man.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Explaining Planetary Alignments cause of Sunspot Cycle

Unread postby RayTomes » Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:54 pm

Regarding the gravitational effects on photons and the factor of 5/3 as well as the new concept "pull" which is an alternative to acceleration that works better for photons.

In order to explain the maths here it is essential to look at things in a slightly different way. It is a different concept to any that I am aware of before. The way to look at it is to examine the time rate of change of momentum per unit mass. This has the same dimensions as acceleration, and effectively it is acceleration. However there are some cases that we have to deal with where the term "acceleration" would not be applicable, namely vertical (up or down) photons which nevertheless do have a time rate of change of momentum.

It is important to first get out of the way the issues relating to photon mass being zero and the difference between a single photon and a system. In normal convention the mass of a photon is taken as zero. That is the rest mass. However in any system (meaning a conglomeration of matter and radiation in some region of space) the rest mass is the mass as seen in the reference frame where the total momentum is zero or the centre of mass is not moving. So as soon as we have a collection of photons traveling in random directions, they each contribute to the system a mass m as given by e=mc^2 to that system. This is standard physics.

So let us start with a definition of a new variable which I will call "pull" and use the symbol "b" (being right next to "a" in the alphabet). Pull is defined as the time rate of change of momentum per unit mass.

b = 1/m.dp/dt

When we have a conglomerate of matter and radiation (such as the Sun's core or the Sun's outer layers) this variable b is the correct one to use as a measure of the acceleration of any part of that conglomerate. When we add together a bunch of matter and radiation, if we weight each part by its mass, then we will be summing correctly the momentum of that conglomerate. Then dividing again by the total mass we will get acceleration as a result.

When considering photons in a gravitational field (e.g. here on Earth in the laboratory) we can divide the directions into the 6 axes and determine the results for each case. The 4 horizontal axes are all the equivalent and Einstein has already shown that the change in direction is 2x the Newtonian one. So for these 4 photons we have that the acceleration vector and the momentum are changed by 2 times Newtonian gravity (g):

b = 2g

For the vertical photons, there is also a change in momentum predicted by Einstein. This is called "gravitational redshift" and Einstein's formula may be manipulated by using E=mc^2 and E=hf to find that b = g in both the vertically up and down cases.

df/dt = fg/c (as given by Einstein)

so b = 1/m.dp/dt = 1/m/c.dE/dt = h/m/c.df/dt = h/m/c.fg/c = Eg/E = g

That means there is no 2x factor for vertical photons, just the normal Newtonian rate of change of momentum per unit mass.

So taken over the whole sphere of directions for random photons we have 2x in 4 directions and 1x in two directions. That makes an average of 5/3x for random photon directions.
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 » Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:59 pm

My notes from 1990 on planetary calculations

The calculations performed were to determine the position of the
planets at regular intervals in three dimensions, with respect to the
solar equator. The gravitational forces of each planet were then
calculated, allowing for their masses, distances and directions.
Then in the resulting force all but the N-S component were discarded as
the other components tend to cancel out within one solar rotation.
This N-S component is an acceleration of the solar interior relative
to the exterior, and the direction is north or south in the sun.
It is necessary to integrate the acceleration over time to obtain
a velocity, and then integrate this over time to get a displacement
of matter. The planets that dominate the different components are
different. Venus and the Earth have significant accelerations, but
because of their short periods they do not build up, but instead
reverse. Uranus and Neptune have very small accelerations, but
because of their very long periods they result in significant
displacements of matter. In the resulting displacement of solar
matter, the important planets in order are J, S, N, U. (See Table 3)

It is worth noting here that as far as accelerations go (which may
or may not be important) the formula is I*M/D^2 while for the resulting
displacements the formula is I*M*P^2/D^2 where M=Mass, P=Period and
D=Distance and I=inclination to the sun. But (as Kepler showed) P^2 is
proportional to D^3 and so the result may be expressed as I*M*D.
For the four major planets, all the I's are within 10% of 6 degrees, and
so the result is approximately proportional to M*D which is the same
formula used by COM adherents! However, only the component of COM
which is at right angles to the line of the nodes is important, the
component in the direction of the nodes is not (all the nodes of the
major planets orbits are within 10 degrees of longitude 245 of the
sun's equator).

Note: The COM (Centre of Mass) hypothesis states that the motion of
the sun about the COM of the solar system somehow has an effect on
the sun. There has been no meaningful mechanism proposed for it to
work. The other alternative previously proposed has been tidal forces,
but although there is a mechanism, the effects are too small.

The displacements caused by the planets in the sun were calculated for
the years 1600-2000 and the absolute values (that is with the sign
disregarded) were analysed for cycles. The resulting spectrum shows
many peaks related to various planetary combinations. These are most
easily understood as combinations of the planets frequencies ( which
are just the inverse of the periods), and the frequencies are then
found to be simple combinations such as J+S, J-S, J+N, J-N, J+U, J-U.
These have periods of 8.46, 19.86, 11.07, 12.78, 10.40 and 13.81
respectively. Jupiter's period of 11.86 years also appears, but is
less important than the combinations.

When 264 years of sunspot numbers were analysed, the following periods
were found in order of importance :- 11.07, 10.01, 10.53, 12.09, 9.51,
8.53, 12.93, 13.95. Other researchers have generally reported periods
of 11.1, 9.9 and 11.8 years and sometimes 8.5.

It seems that on the whole the sunspot periods are a close match to the
solar displacement periods due to planetary action. The 10.01/9.9 year
sunspot period is probably related to half the J-S period which is 9.93.
There is no matching period to the 9.51 year sunspot period, but a
possible explanation will be given later.

The amplitudes of the periods in the sunspots are different to those
in the solar displacement periods. The 11.07, 10.40 and 9.93 year
periods are strong in the sunspots while the 12.78, 13.81 and 8.46
year periods are less strong. By comparing the amplitudes in each,
it can be seen that the sun has resonance with periods near about 10.5
years, but much less so with periods above 12 or below 9 years. This
is a classic example of a system with a natural resonant period.

Table 1 below shows the main periods compared, and the relative
amplitudes for sunspots/displacement. These are then graphed in
figure 2 below (not shown here - will try to produce this later), and
the resonance period is shown quite clearly.

Table 1

Comparison of periods found in the calculated solar displacement
caused by the planets with the average planetary periods and with
periods found in the sunspot cycle. Also shown are the amplitudes
of the cycles in the solar displacement and in the sunspots, and the
ratio between these. The ratios indicate that the sun has a resonance
with a period of about 10.5 years.

Code: Select all
Solar Displacement   Planetary Combination   Sunspots         Amplitude
                                                              Ratio
Period  Amplitude    Planets   Period     Period  Amplitude
(years)                        (years)    (years)

13.89    0.7         J-U       13.812     13.95   0.12        0.17
12.80    1.1         J-N       12.782     12.93   0.17        0.15
11.87    0.3         J         11.862     12.09   0.27         -
11.06    1.2         J+N       11.066     11.07   0.51        0.43
10.39    0.8         J+U       10.395     10.51   0.37        0.46
 9.96    0.3        (J-S)/2 ?    9.93      10.01   0.50
                                           9.51   0.25
                                           8.92   0.15
 8.46    1.5         J+S        8.457      8.53   0.19        0.13
                                           8.18   0.11


It is worth mentioning that the main sunspot cycle period which is
11.076+-.009 years, based on an analysis of Schove's maxima dates for
over 2000 years, is very close to the 11.066 year J+N period.

It was an unfortunate coincidence (the solar system is full of them)
that there is a J-V-E period of 11.068 years (or really 22.135 years)
that might confuse the issue.

It is worthwhile explaining the meaning of the 11.066 Jupiter+Neptune
period, and why it is the dominant cycle. In terms of their effect
on the sun, Saturn should rank ahead of Neptune, but Saturn's periods
in relation to the other planets are not generally near the "natural"
solar period. Neptune remains above the Sun's equator for 82.4 years
and then below for 82.4 years. 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. Actually the timing of the solar interior displacement
is 180 degrees out of phase with the above description for each planet,
but the description is otherwise correct.

The timing of the actual peaks in the sunspot cycle do not match
those in the planets displacement of the solar interior. This is to
be expected with the discovery of resonance, which means that in
effect the sun has a memory, and that different cycles will have
different lag periods according to their distance from the resonant
period. Building a model of this is required, and this is really a
job for a solar physicist. Some attempts at a crude model have
achieved a correlation coefficient of 0.66 with the sunspot cycle,
but it is difficult to get a match in the phase variations and the
amplitude variations simultaneously.

A successful model incorporating resonance will no doubt be able to
explain the Maunder minimum when the sunspot cycle almost stopped.
Clearly what must happen is that the planetary forces get badly out
of phase with the sunspot cycle and reduce its amplitude -- a bit
like pushing a swing at the wrong time will slow it down.

Table 3

Comparison of the relevant planetary attributes.
The Acceleration is calculated as M*sin(I)/D^2 and the Displacement as
M*sin(I)*P^2/D^2 (which is equivalent to M*sin(I)*D or very like COM).
Note that the inclinations are to the solar equator, and that the
periods quoted are relative to the nodes of the orbit with the
solar equator, and so are a little different to normal.

Code: Select all
Planet   Mass  Distance  Period  Inclination  Acceler.  Displacement
           M      D         P        I

Mercury  0.056   0.387  0.2408522   3.18       0.021      0.0012
Venus    0.826   0.723  0.6152078   3.75       0.10       0.039
Earth    1.012   1.000  1.0000417   7.14       0.13       0.13
Mars     0.108   1.524  1.880885    5.51       0.0045     0.016
Jupiter  318.4   5.203   11.86233   6.00       1.228    172.9
Saturn    95.2   9.538   29.4568    5.45       0.099     86.2
Uranus    14.6  19.182   84.016     6.36       0.0044    31.1
Neptune   17.3  30.06   164.802     6.36       0.0021    57.6


Pluto has been omitted as its mass is small.
The Earth's mass includes the moon.

Because of the time element of building up a displacement from a
velocity, it turns out that distant objects such as nearby stars and
the galactic plane generally and the galactic centre have significant
effects on the solar displacement also. As it happens, there is a
lopsidedness of matter in the southern sky, which means that a long
term average heat flow will be biased in the direction of the sun's
south pole (not in the direction of the stars or galaxy).
Over very long periods, the sun moves up and down through the galactic
plane. This would cause major heat flow variations in the sun with
reversals about every 30 million years. It is possible that this is
another link in the chain of events leading to the major extinction
events.
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 » Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:12 pm

A couple of diagrams that might help make things clearer.

This diagram shows how the effect of Jupiter (or any planet) varies over one solar rotation. All the forces in the plane of the Sun's rotation are pretty much canceled out. However the polar component is not canceled but summed up. This is the reason that magnetic fields are created.

GR-effect-Jupiter-on-Sun.png
GR effect of Jupiter on the Sun showing average over one solar rotation.


When the predicted and observed periodicities were compared it was found that only the ones near 10.5 years were actually manifesting strongly in the Sun. Those periods further away were quite weak. Therefore it is suggested that the Sun has a natural resonance of 10.5 years (or perhaps 21.0 years if we consider polarity).

solar-resonance-planetary-periods-10.5-years.png
Evidence for a solar resonance at 10.5 years.
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 7:49 pm

Ray, Tallbloke here. I'm so glad this is a current thread, I've been wanting to discuss this with you for a year!
I took your idea of looking at barycentric motion in the z axis relative to the solar equatorial plane and made a couple of interesting discoveries. If you average the monthly data over the hale cycle (~22 years or two Jupiter orbital periods ~24 years) you get a curve which matches changes in Earth's length of day, and also(loosely) de-trended temperature data.

Image

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 and inverted).

Image

But, the sunspot data is 30 years ahead of the z axis data. 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.
Last edited by eclipse on Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
eclipse
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:00 pm
Location: UK

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests