Sunspot cycles and the planets

[jacmac]

Seasmith,
Thanks for the link.
This is from there:

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)

And this:

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.

And:

In 1922 Ellsworth Huntington recognized that the planets may well influence sunspots.

There is a lot of material to look into there.
So far, I have not found discussion of the electrical connection between the sun and planets.

I have been looking into various relationships of the planets to the sun. These are some of my
recent inquiries.

1) How many sunspots are there ? The sunspot number is a composite of single spots and groups. The groups are counted as ten. The amount of singles and groups is remote(to me) data.
Also, are sunspots only counted once even though they might be on the sun for more than one rotation relative to earth ?
2) I have suggested that the position of each planet above or below the solar wind and/or the heliospheric current sheet might be significant. Where might one find this data ? What about the position relative to the solar ecliptic? This might be a good approxamation for HCS crossings.
3) The earth orbit being at approx. 7 degrees from the solar equatorial ecliptic, places earth approx. 11 million miles above or below the solar ecliptic at the maximum distance due to inclination. That is a long distance. Is the earth still in the solar wind. How thick is the solar wind at 1 AU ? Does the earth stop crossing the HCS for a while at this part of its orbit ?

So many questions, so little time.
Tomorrow.....Ellsworth Huntington.

[seasmith]

Jacmac wrote:

So far, I have not found discussion of the electrical connection between the sun and planets.

In an ESG model, the solar system could be likened to an Electro-Static Gyroscope; with planets and sun corresponding the wheels and axis of a gyro.
If our solar system was violently disrupted in the relatively recent past as the Saturnists propose, electro-static/gyroscopic reactions are the only way i can conceive of to quickly rebalance the spinning system, at least in the short time suggested by myth.
Just Gravity and EM emanations wouldn't be able to do it,
imo.

[Webbman]

looks more like a electric generator and the sunspots are drawing some heavy duty current evidenced by strong magnetic fields near sunspots.

the earth is the electromagnet, the solar wind is the conductor and the sun is the load. Like any electromagnet you have to also charge the magnet/coil to get it to work and I believe this happens inductively.

so in essence I would not be surprised at all if the planets actually help generate power for the sun.

[jacmac]

Yes, Webbman, that fits with the notion that the planets cause the sunspots. The very strong magnetic field at sunspots indicates, to me also, strong current flow.
One working idea presented above is that the planets could trigger sunspots by crossing the heliospheric current sheet(HCS), into a reverse solar magnetic field, and/or solar oriented planet alignments might also trigger sunspots.. I had the notion that the solar wind itself might have a dampening effect, due to few sunspots at the solar equator, but I could have that backwards.
I see sunspots as an interference in the quiet sun surface, and the planets as the likely candidates for that interference. Looking at the planets as generators of electric energy to the sun puts it all in broader perspective.

Also, at this site:

http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/

Ben Davidson and Dr. Kongpop U-yen discuss the connection of the sun and earth with longitude waves, in the context of discussing earthquakes.
Ben Davidson also talks about the similarities of sunspots and earthspots, ie. the movements of storms and cloud patterns seems to mimic the sunspot umbra areas. This discussion is available to members. I have recently paid more attention to Ben Davidson's work and I think it is worth the price of membership.

[jacmac]

I have been looking for the Longitude of the planets as each one is at perihelion or aphelion. I am curious about the planet positions above and below the solar equator for reasons stated above. What I am finding is that the planet positions are usually measured in reference to the ecliptic(the earth orbit) and not to the sun.

Although since Copernicus we know the earth and planets orbit the sun, much of the position info on planets is given in reference to the earth. So we know where to look, I guess. But to study the solar system to understand the sun, planet info relative to the sun would be better.

DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO FIND PLANETARY LONGITUDE AT APHELION (OR PERIHELION) RELATIVE TO THE SOLAR EQUATOR ?

Jack

[Solar]

DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO FIND PLANETARY LONGITUDE AT APHELION (OR PERIHELION) RELATIVE TO THE SOLAR EQUATOR ?

Jack

Are you referring to "Planetary Heliocentric Longitudes"?

Such as: Heliocentric Longitudes of the Planets for the first day of each month, Sept. 2014-Dec. 2016

[Webbman]

now you just need to find out where (and when) the solar wind is the strongest/weakest and its it cycles and you have your generator. To generate current all we need to do is pass through.

[jacmac]

Solar, thanks for the links.
Here is what I have on longitude of perihelion:

Second column from the end is longitude of perihelion in degrees.

http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~ross/Astronomy/Planets.html

I am assuming these elements are measured on the ecliptic, but I will use them for now.
I would prefer measurements on the solar equatorial plane, but that info might not be readily available.

Webbman,
Easier said than done I believe.
The solar wind seems to be with us(earth) all the time regardless of our distance above or below the solar equatorial plane. And the solar wind seems to be in an almost constant flux.
The earth does have "crossings" above and below(or through) the Heliospheric Current Sheet(HCS) which might be more significant regarding sunspots and perhaps easier to identify. As the sun rotates faster than the planets orbit, the solar wind and the HCS are doing the "crossings", which brings me to another item.

If the planets are causing, or are participants in, sunspots how are the currents maintained as the sun rotates faster than the planets orbit ? Some sunspots remain beyond a complete rotation of the sun.
Well, two ideas come to mind.
The solar wind has been described as like a plate of spaghetti, where each current maintains its independence while at the same time embedded in what previously looked like chaos. (sorry, a reference to this has long gone)
Also, the magnetic field of the sun near the surface of the sun is said to wrap around the giant body as a result of faster differential rotation at the equator. This could also indicate the presence of currents from sunspots to planets wrapping around the sun.

It is of course all speculation on my part.
That's what can happen after reading about EU for several years.
Perseverance furthers.

[Webbman]

well electricity follows the path of least resistance not necessarily the most direct route. You have to remember that EVERYTHING is spinning.

also you don't know what kind of lasting impact a connection makes with the sun. It might only take a second to transfer the current but the surface of the sun might be disturbed for quite some time after.

[jacmac]

There are multiple theories about the relationships of the planets and sunspots. They include(not limited to): tidal forces, general relativity effects, tilt angles of planet magnetic fields, angular momentum, radiation pressure, precessional action, barycenter occilations, solar jerks, plasma tides etc.

This paper stands out IMO as important.

Scafetta and Wilson 2013.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.7753.pdf

A brief summary of key points:

We find empirical evidence for planetary-induced forcing and modulation of solar activity

The conventional view of solar science has been that solar magnetic and radiant variability are driven by internal solar dynamics alone, characterized by hydromagnetic solar dynamo models (Tobias, 2002; Jiang et al., 2007). However, current solar dynamo models assume that the Sun is an isolated system and have been unable to explain and/or forecast solar variability including the emergence of the Schwabe 11-year cycle and of its multidecadal, secular and millennia modulations

An alternative theory for solar variability was first put forth in the 19th century by numerous auroral and solar specialists such as Wolf (1859), and investigated later by Brown (1900), Luby (1948) and others. It proposes that solar magnetic and radiant variability is partially regulated by planetary gravitational and magnetic forcings.

The planetary theory of solar variation has not found support within the mainstream solar physics community during the last decades because: (1) it was found problematic to qualitatively relate secular solar variability to planetary cycles (Smythe and Eddy, 1977); (2) planetary forcings appear weak over the sun-planet distances

The planetary configuration of our solar system is known very well and there are solar data and magnetic activity proxy models spanning decades to millennia that are of relatively high quality. A number of empirical studies have found preliminary evidence for planetary influences on solar behavior (Bigg, 1967; Charvátová and Stˇreštík, 1991; Cionco and Compagnucci, 2012; Fairbridge and Shirley, 1987; Hung, 2007; Jose, 1965; Juckett, 2000, 2003; Landscheidt, 1999; Leal-Silva and Velasco Herrera, 2012; Sharp, 2013; Wilson et al., 2008).

The physical problem is not solved yet and is highly controversial

We have investigated evidences for planetary-induced solar luminosity enhancement in the ACRIM and PMOD TSI satellite composites on monthly to annual timescales. A set of spectral peaks closely matching a set of planetary gravitational and magnetic theoretical harmonics has been found.

The harmonics present in the variability of satellite TSI satellite observations indicate that planetary forcings are likely modulating solar activity and that both magnetic and gravitational coupling are involved.

The evidence is there to link the planets to the solar cycle. The mechanism for how it works is "the physical problem".

[Webbman]

we are a magnet. we can only do one thing really.

[seasmith]

For those who weren't at EU2015 (like me), Ben Davidson's Intro to Earthspots is released this week:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2016/0 ... ts-eu2015/

Good follow-up to Dr Yu-yen's earlier release, well worth the watch.

The comprehensive phrase for the dynamics described might be summarized as 'eddy-currents'.
For example, when testing materials for defects with electro-magnetic eddy-current inspection, the eddies created by a fault in the material, say the steel hull of a pressure vessel, can be detected on the outer surface, in the near-field space above the the surface, as well as on the inside of the vessel.
The reason those "arcs" between sunspots are not seen in conjunction with "earthspots, imo, is simply due the difference in amplitude/intensity of the charge energy organelles on the sun vs. on earth.
Weather fronts moving through Earth's atmosphere are a of more diffuse flow, e.g. 'sheet currents', as opposed to solar arc currents.
imo

[D_Archer]

For those who weren't at EU2015 (like me), Ben Davidson's Intro to Earthspots is released this week:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2016/0 ... ts-eu2015/

Good follow-up to Dr Yu-yen's earlier release, well worth the watch.

I saw that, very interesting, the analogies are spot on.

It also gave me a new insight, Ben mostly talks about the magnetic fields, but the causa prima is the currents (ie charge channels in/out), when you have a charge going in (or out) perpendicular to a surface it causes draw in or push out via simple fluid dynamics.

To visualize this best, try this at home, if you have a faucet and turn on the water and you have a flat surface the water stream hits you can see the radial lines out (same as the penumbra), the water stream represents the current.

Regards,
Daniel

[CharlesChandler]

The evidence is there to link the planets to the solar cycle. The mechanism for how it works is "the physical problem".

I'm showing a direct electrical connection between the Sun and the Earth, via the heliospheric current sheet. (See Heliosphere.) I'm showing that Sunspots are electric currents feeding somewhat more robustly into the HCS, and of course the HCS is responsible for the Earth's aurora. I'm showing that Tidal Forces are electric, both theoretically, and in terms of instrumented data, and statistically (in terms of their correlation with Earthquakes and Volcanoes, which I show to be electric by independent lines of reasoning). So it's all connected.

Is that "physical" enough?

[upriver]

John H. Nelson's theory of propagation:

Is there anything to it?
By David Dalton, K9WQ

In March 1951, John H. Nelson, an engineer for the RCA Communications Co. in New York, published an article in RCA Review describing a theory for predicting shortwave radio propagation over the North Atlantic. Nelson developed the theory by comparing planetary positions relative to the sun with logs of propagation conditions maintained at RCA's receiving station at Riverhead, Long Island.

The article said that certain configurations of the six inner planets correlated with degraded propagation conditions. Nelson was not dogmatic about his theory. Rather, in the article and in a followup article published in May 1952, he encouraged further study. Nelson believed that his theory was about 85 percent accurate in its predictions.

As far as I can determine from searching the Web, few or no studies have been done to test Nelson's theory. The theory appears to have been either neglected, or discounted based on studies that I am not aware of. Don C. Maier, a retired electrical engineer who met Nelson almost 50 years ago, had a copy of Nelson's 1951 article which was given to him by Nelson, and the article was republished, with Maier's comments, in the March/April 2000 issue of Infinite Energy magazine. Maier also encouraged further study and recognized that Nelson's theory might be of particular interest to hams.

http://www.eham.net/articles/8828

Scanned Article on Enterprise mission..
http://www.enterprisemission.com/jnelson2.html