Spotless Sun

[earls]

http://science.slashdot.org/science/08/ ... 2218.shtml

Among other sources, it is circulating today that the Sun has gone an entire calendar month without any sunspots.

I can't think of a better application of the Electric Universe theory than predicting sunspot behavior, yet proponents of this theory are just as empty handed as any other "traditional" mainstream astrophysicist, no?

[Lloyd]

- Our main E.U. theorists seem to believe that the interstellar electric currents that produce changes in sunspot counts are too diffuse to be detectable by most or all instruments at this time. Perhaps a means of detecting the currents will be found before long. Don Scott has said that sunspots depend on a certain ratio of electrons to positive ions in the sun's photosphere, I think, or something like that.
- Another member here thinks the sun is powered by longitudinal waves from the galactic core. I don't know if those waves would be detectable either.
- In the meantime lots of new things seem to keep cropping up on the TPODs etc.

[Lloyd]

The following is from http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper_confirm.htm
It is an undeniable fact that Jupiter and Saturn -- which possess only a tiny fraction the solar system’s total mass compared to the sun – are, in fact, a huge influence on the sun itself (and all of the other planets as a consequence). This is because they conversely possess most (almost 99%) of the solar system’s total bulk angular momentum.

... For over 30 years, based only on the heliocentric positions of the planets, John Nelson was able -- with over 90% accuracy [http://www.geocities.com/astro_weather/mavericks.htm] -- to successfully predict sunspots, solar flares and geomagnetic storms -- something not possible by any other current scientific means!

On the latter point, Nelson also "rediscovered" something else:

"... it is worthy of note that in 1948, when Jupiter and Saturn were spaced by 120º, and solar activity was at a maximum, radio signals averaged of far higher quality for the year than in 1951 with Jupiter and Saturn at 180º and a considerable decline in solar activity. In other words, the average quality curve of radio signals [reflected by the Earth's ionosphere] followed the cycle curve between Jupiter and Saturn rather than the sunspot curve [emphasis added] ....”

These decades-old observations are very telling ... not only confirming Jupiter and Saturn as the primary drivers behind the sun's known cycle of activity (in the Hyperdimensional Model ...), but strongly implying an additional direct effect of their changing angular relationship on the electrical properties of Earth's ionosphere. This, of course, is totally consistent with these changing planetary geometries affecting not just the sun, but the other planets simultaneously as well -- just as "conventional" astrologers have claimed -- but, in actuality, via Maxwell's "changing scalar potentials” (i.e. torsion fields ...).

At this point, then, only the Hyperdimensional Theory:

1. Points to the deepest implications of the simple astronomical fact that the tail “does wag the dog" -- that the planets in this Physics are fully capable of exerting a determinant influence on the sun – and on each other -- through their disproportionate ratio of total solar system angular momentum: over 100 to 1, in the (known) planets' favor.

2. Possesses the precise physical mechanism -- via Maxwell's "changing quaternion scalar potentials" (also known now as the “torsion spin field”) -- accounting for this anomalous planetary angular momentum influence.

3. Has already publicly identified, at the United Nations in 1992, a blatant geometric clue to this entire hyperdimensional solar process: the maximum sunspot numbers (those large, relatively cool, rotating vortices appearing on the solar surface), rising, falling and methodically changing latitude, during the course of the familiar twenty-two-year solar cycle—and peaking every half-cycle (around eleven years), at the solar latitude of 19.5º.

[Lloyd]

http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Makes+Hist ... e12823.htm

In 2005, a pair of astronomers from the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson attempted to publish a paper in the journal Science. The pair looked at minute spectroscopic and magnetic changes in the sun. By extrapolating forward, they reached the startling result that, within 10 years, sunspots would vanish entirely. At the time, the sun was very active. Most of their peers laughed at what they considered an unsubstantiated conclusion.

[rcglinsk]

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

I'm pretty sure that when a sunspot is active electric current is flowing out of the sun. A period of no sunspots then implies a buildup of current density in the sun. If there is any interstellar current it's almost certainly alternating, and very slowly via scale up of time with distance. The moon takes about 28 days to cycle, that might have something to do with the cycle of sunspots, it might not. It's probably better to just sit back and observe the sunspots and not read too much significance into what could be coincidental relationships to our calender. The sun's been doing this for way longer than we've been watching.

[keeha]

I'm a gumbooting materials chemist here so correct me as needed please.

I've read elsewhere and as two posters have noted above lower interstellar current trough(?) the sun lowers its current density and more sun-spots are observed since the current is no longer enough to allow full tufting over the sun's surface.

Since the sunspot cycle is related to the other planets, when the sunspot cycle is at a peak is the convergence or alignment of other planets 'intercepting' more of our solar system's interstellar current? (I have not seen any literature on this)

Is the increase in solar flares associated with the sunspot peak not due to the sun being more active via current density (since current density is lower) but to the disturbances in current/magnetic fields at low current.

Thus at this time in the 11 or 22 year solar cycle, when the sun shares least current with the planets, does the lack of sunspots indicate that the interstellar current our solar system is experiencing is now higher than it has been for the last 100 years or so?

How do Birkland's Terella experiments relate? My gumbooting then assumes less current at sunspot peak, but during the sunspot cycle, sunspots move towards the equator, and Birkland mimicked this by adding current to his sphere. However perhaps it is the flared up plasma from the sun that creates the plasma ring, so it is more prominant even as the sun's current is lower?

[MGmirkin]

Keeha:

Take a look at this page:

(Chapter VI. On Possible Electric Phenomena in Solar Systems and Nebulae; from Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition)
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.ph ... nd_Nebulae
http://www.archive.org/details/norwegia ... 01chririch (full text)

Specifically the part on page 662 relating to the banding patterns and what causes them to contract equatorward, or expand poleward.

We will now pass on to experiments that in my opinion have brought about the most important discoveries in the long chain of experimental analogies to terrestrial and cosmic phenomena that I have produced. In the experiments represented in figs. 248 a-e, there are some small white patches on the globe, which are due to a kind of discharge that, under ordinary circumstances, is disruptive, and which radiates from points on the cathode. If the globe has a smooth surface and is not magnetized, the disruptive discharges come rapidly one after another, and are distributed more or less uniformly all over the globe (see a). On the other hand, if the globe is magnetized, even very slightly, the patches from which the disruptive discharges issue, arrange themselves then in two zones parallel with the magnetic equator of the globe; and the more powerfully the globe is magnetized, the nearer do they come to the equator (see b, c, d). With a constant magnetization, the zones of patches will be found near the equator if the discharge-tension is low, but far from the equator if the tension is high. Fig. 248e shows the phenomenon seen from below.

From this we glean:

1) If the globe is non-magnetized, the distribution of arc spots is more or less random about the globe.
2) If the globe is magnetized, then the spots arrange themselves into bands parallel to the equator.
--a) With constant current:
----i) the more powerful the magnetic field, the closer the spot bands come to the equator.
----ii) the weaker the magnetic field the further the spot bands will migrate away from the equator toward the poles.
--b) With constant magnetization:
----i) the more powerful the discharge, the further from the equator and the closer to the poles the spot bands will be.
----ii) the less powerful the discharge, the closer to the equator the spot bands will be.

So, can this be applied to the sun? One would think so, if the process works the same in space as it does in the lab.

Let me try to answer the question, then, according to Birkeland, and possibly with reference to Alfvén's solar circuit diagram as well...

So, here's the solar cycle, more-or-less complete:



We can see the oscillation of any 11-year "hemicycle" (for lack of a better term off the top of my head). Hemicycle is basically a half-circle, which is apt. The typical 11-year cycle is only 1/2 of a "full solar cycle" (I prefer to the term "grand cycle," personally, so I'll probably use that for here forward).

I say that the 11-year cycle is only half the cycle because, although the solar flare and sunspot cycle goes from minimum to maximum to minimum, the polarity of sunspots also flips between 11-year cycles. So to technically get back to "scratch," we have to get back to the same polarity configuration on sunspots too. Hence I refer to the 22-year cycle as the "grand cycle" or "full solar cycle."

So, that said, what happens when? I guess we should define our reference points.

Four points that seem to be obvious, more-or-less would be the minima and maxima of the solar activity over one grand cycle. IE, minimum, maximum, minimum, maximum [and back to the starting minimum for the next grand cycle].

However, different aspects of the sun do different things at those times and in between. At solar minima, the sunspot polarities flip. At solar maximum, the sun's overall field flips. See another thread I'd made comments on.

Birkeland's stuff may come in handy in figuring out what's going on when. Alfven's stuff may also be equally handy in diagramming the sun, electrically.

(Alfven's solar circuit diagram)


My understanding of Alfven's diagram is that the secondary currents seen in the upper right and lower right quadrants of the schematic are induced when the primary input current is either increasing or decreasing, but disappear when the current is holding steady. Likewise, the secondary current direction is dependent on whether current is rising or falling. IE, it will reverse when the current changes behavior from a rising mode to a falling mode or vice versa. That is, I believe, how sunspot polarity flips are accounted for in understanding the Alfvén schematic.

So, let's go back to Birkeland for a bit... If the sun had no magnetic field, and we're working under Birkeland's model, we'd expect the sun to have randomly distributed spots all over its face. But, that's not the case. The various solar activity is arranged into neat little bands of activity. That accords with our understanding that the sun does in fact have a magnetic field. In fact, it extends throughout the solar system as the IMF (interplanetary magnetic field). So, that seems to make sense.

We see that the solar cycle oscillates in latitude over the course of the solar cycle. According to Birkeland, that would mean that either the magnetization is constant and the current is fluctuating, or the current is constant and the magnetic field is fluctuating. I think that there might be a third options as well. IE, I think there's a relationship between magnetic field strength, electric current strength and the behavior of the bands. IE, if the current exceeds some ratio of current strength to magnetic field strength, you get one kind of behavior (or migration of the banding spots), if it falls below the ratio, you get the opposite behavior (migration the other way). Since the sun's probably not a permanent magnet, it may be that both aspect vary over the course of the cycle and it's the relationship between them that determines the behavior?

But, let's take a look at the cycle again via Alfvén... So, okay, we know that sunspots flip polarity at solar minimum and the sun's magnetic field flips polarity at solar maximum. According to Alfvén, if I've understood correctly, the sunspot minimum and flip flip is predicated on the behavior of the secondary currents in Alfvén's diagram. Those are predicated on the behavior of the primary currents. When the primary currents are rising, the secondary currents will flow a specific way and the sunspots will have a specific polarity. When the primary currents are falling, the secondary currents go into reverse and the sunspot polarity flips with them. When the primary currents reach a local maximum or minimum, the secondary currents falter and the sunspots go away. This could be very roughly modeled via sine or cosine curves. Figuring out the secondary current direction would be something like taking the tangent of the primary current's graph at any point and figuring out whether the slope is rising, falling or 0. The 0-slope bits are where the secondary currents collapse, as do the sunspots. I'm trying to remember, I think that's not unlike the 1st derivative of the primary current graph? IE, graphing the change in the first graph...

So, the sunspot minimum is actually at the local maximum or minimum of the graph of the input current (where the tangent would be zero, thus the secondary current more-or-less zero as well). So, sunspot minimums correspond to either a peak in current flow or a trough in current flow. Essentially constant current flow at that point, before the graph gets back to "sloping" one way or the other.

Solar maximum and/or sunspot maximum would be the point at which the secondary currents are strongest and the primary currents are undergoing the most change (gaining or losing strength the most rapidly). If secondary currents are strongest here, might we expect sunspot magnetic fields to be at their most prominent as well?

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[keeha]

Thanks for the detailed reply Michael!

If I understand the relationship you described, I could see the primary current as a 22year sign wave oscillation with a minimum at a low positive value and peaks at a slightly higher positive value (min and max have slope=0). The secondary current as a sign wave with 1/2e the wavelength of the primary (11 year). The relation between the two currents could be:

1.At the primary minimum, current change is 0, and the secondary current is 0 and sunspots (and equatorial plasma?) are at a medium.
2.At the primary rising inflection point, current change is at its maximum, secondary current is maximum (lets say max 'positive'), sunspots are maximum and equatorial plasma is maximum).
3.The the primary peak, current change is 0, and the secondary current is 0 and sunspots (and equatorial plasma?) are at a minimum.
4.At the primary decreasing inflection point, current change is at its maximum, secondary current is maximum (lets say max 'negative'), sunspots are maximum and equatorial plasma is maximum).

I see now that our sun's sunspots are not produced from low current density alone, but as Alfen describes (link) more likely from the 'looping' currents that rise above the photosphere (Solar Prominence) and this effect is proportional to the secondary current.
Curiously one could make the case here that the sun's sunspots can still be related to low current density as could not the equatorial plasma maximum be conducting a significant amount of the primary current (or interstellar current?).

If sunspots are areas that allow a flow of positive ions through the photosphere, how do they 'change polarity'? Is it just the orientation of the poles of a solar prominence with the poles of the sun that changes direction?

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf

[vukcevic]

Hi there,
I’ve got to know about your forum via solarcycle24com forum. I have made a number of contributions there on the subject which is discussed here as well. Here are some extracts:

to see complete image visit http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/graph1.gif
The purpose of the graph is to demonstrate a possible link between solar periodic activity and orbital properties of the major planets i.e. Jupiter and Saturn. This is I believe achieved via a feedback as a result of energy exchange between heliospheric current and planetary magnetospheres. The Sun’s surface is permeated by a close circuit of the Alfven’s current, which on its voyage to the outer reaches of the solar system and back, encounters the planetary magnetospheres, these in turn act as energy syncs for the heliospheric current, thus modulating it, and trough process of a feedback affect the activity on the Sun’s surface itself (see http://www.vukcevic.co.uksolar current link). In past numerous attempts were made to explain the effect by simply attributing it to the gravitational forces alone, and a small minority still believes it to be the case. As far as I know I am for the time being in minority of one, not only on this forum but probably in whole of the known universe, believing that the heliospheric current feedback hypothesis is correct. Despite this being in a direct conflict with the current science I still keep trying to point the obvious.
! Health warning! Approach with extreme caution!

Back to the diagram:
The gray (faint line) is obviously sunspot (SS) record with scale to the left.
• If the Sun is an oscillating system (either synchronized or modulated by an outside factor) than its behavior should be possible to express in simple mathematical terms.
• As in ordinary electric or mechanical oscillating circuits single general equation ( Y ) should cover number of resonant frequency ranges (in this case periods).
• Introducing into the general equation Jupiter and Jupiter-Saturn periods gives the first particular equation ( Y1 ). This is blue line in the diagram. Note of warning: I am here demonstrating periodicity correlation, and by simply choosing as nominal amplitude 100, the equation just happens, in some cases, to coincide with the solar cycles (SC) maxima (the correlation with the amplitude is not point of the exercise).
• Number of authors in past have suggested that SC beside 11 year period has a number of other much longer ones. Both, oscillating and modulation processes always contain higher harmonics, sub-harmonics, side-band frequencies etc. If a particular combination of J & S periods is introduced in the general equation and plotted against SS record then result is red line, the second particular equation ( Y2 ) which happens to mimic Maunder minimum, further more its zeros point to Dalton minimum, as well as pick out number of occasions when a particular solar cycle was reduced in its amplitude in relation to the neighboring once (this is a property also observed with both mechanical and electronic oscillating circuits).
It is important to state that the null or near null points of the equations are the significant ones, in mathematical terms both components of either equation are nearly equal in value but have opposite signs...
Note of warning: It is not aim of any of the above to negate in any way whatsoever current understanding how SS are generated or dispute any of SS or SC measured or observed properties. It is to point out that there is a possibility that SS generation is either synchronized or modulated by outside factors as outlined above.
On SC24
In view of the concern about SC24 appearance my suggestion is that start of SC24 might be suppressed by presence of a sub-cycle. The graphic representation of the detailed calculations apparently show presence of a sub-cycle, for method used see http://www.vukcevic.co.uklink solar subcycle. These show that there is a presence of major fluctuation with period of about 400 days within most if not for all 23 cycles. The most convincing in this respect is case of SC17.

to see complete image visit http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/SC17-SC23.gif
The analysis shows that the subcycle has a period of 1.092 years.The Earth – Jupiter synodic period (398.88 days = 1.092822 years). Here it is influence of the Earth's magnetosphere.
Presence of sunspot sub-cycle is also clearly evident in the solar magnetic field records.

[keeha]

Thanks for that image vukcevic! Does this image from NASA show the same information? The red and blue is identified only as outward and inward 'IMF.'
NASA

p.s. a correction is needed for my post above:
1.At the primary minimum, current change is 0, and the secondary current is 0 and sunspots (and equatorial plasma?) are at a mimimum.

[MGmirkin]

1.At the primary minimum, current change is 0, and the secondary current is 0 and sunspots (and equatorial plasma?) are at a medium.

If I've understood correctly from the EU (Electric Universe; Wallace Thornhill / David Talbott) / ES (Electric Sky; Don Scott) books, that should be "at a minimum" as opposed to "medium."

IE, if the primary current is at a minimum, it's change is temporarily zero (the slope of the tangent to the sine curve at that point), thus the secondary current would also be zero. Thus the sunspots would be at a minimum.

That's my limited understanding of it anyway. I think the rest of 1-4 sounded alright. At one point I'd run through the various points of the cycle on a different thread... I think over on the Future of Science board in the pictorial field day thread.

I figure the points of interest are, well, wait, first let's define our units. I'll go with radians, and equate the start / end of of the full 22 years as 2Pi. Half of the full cycle is 11 years (or Pi, i this exercise). The start is obviously zero. I'm talking in terms of the idealized unit circle type stuff.

So, the points of interest are 0, Pi/4, Pi/2, 3Pi/4, Pi, 5Pi/4, 3Pi/2, 7Pi/4, 2Pi.
To simplify, I'll convert everything into Pi/4 notation.

0Pi/4:
Time index: 0
Input current: Local maximum, highest current input, zero slope on the graph, ostensibly no change in rate of flow.
Point in "Solar cycle": Beginning of "apparent cycle" 1.
Point in "Full cycle": Beginning of the "full cycle."
Sunspot count: Sunspot count is at a minimum (few or not sunspots), holding steady.
Sunspot polarities: For the sake of argument, we'll say this is the inflection point whereat sunspot polarities are "transitional." There may be a few of both. It's a confused time for the sun.
Overall magnetic field: For the sake of argument, we'll consider T=0 as the baseline with the north magnetic pole (N) at the north geographic pole (n), with the greatest intensity. Likewise the S-s association is at its greatest intensity.

1Pi/4:
Time index: 2.75 years
Input current: Decreasing slowly, but starting to drop off more quickly.
Point in "Solar cycle": 1/4 of the way through "apparent cycle" 1.
Point in "Full cycle": 1/8 of the way through the "full cycle."
Sunspot count: Sunspot count is medium. Sunspot count is increasing.

2Pi/4:
Time index: 5.5 years
Input current: Decreasing at a good clip.
Point in "Solar cycle": Half way through "apparent cycle" 1.
Point in "Full cycle": 1/4 of the way through the "full cycle."
Sunspot count: Sunspot count is at a maximum. So are solar flares and CMEs.
Overall magnetic field: Magnetic field is undergoing a flip, switching from N-n to N-s and from S-s to S-n (South magnetic pole at north geographic and vice versa).

3Pi/4:
Time index: 8.25 years
Input current: Decreasing, but less quickly.
Point in "Solar cycle": 3/4 of the way through "apparent cycle" 1.
Point in "Full cycle": 3/8 of the way though the "full cycle."
Sunspot count: Sunspot count is medium. Sunspot count is decreasing.

4Pi/4:
Time index: 11 years
Input current: Local minimum, lowest current input, zero slope on the graph, ostensibly no change in rate of flow.
Point in "Solar cycle": The end of "apparent cycle" 1 and the beginning of "apparent cycle" 2.
Point in "Full cycle": Half-way through the "full cycle."
Sunspot count: Sunspot count is at a minimum (few or not sunspots), holding steady.
Sunspot polarities: Sunspot polarities are transitional, in the process of flipping. There may be a mix of both in both hemispheres.
Overall magnetic field: Magnetic field has fully flipped. North is south and South is north.

5Pi/4:
Time index: 13.75 years
Input current: Increasing slowly, but accelerating.
Point in "Solar cycle": 1/4 of the way through "apparent cycle" 2.
Point in "Full cycle": 5/8 of the way through the "full cycle."
Sunspot count: Sunspot count is medium. Sunspot count is increasing.

6Pi/4:
Time index: 16.5 years
Input current: Increasing at a good clip.
Point in "Solar cycle": Half way through "apparent cycle" 2
Point in "Full cycle": 3/4 of the way through the "full cycle."
Sunspot count: Sunspot count is at a maximum. So are solar flares and CMEs.
Overall magnetic field: Magnetic field is undergoing a flip, switching from N-s back to N-n and from S-n back to S-s (returning from the "flipped poles" state to the "normal" North-north and South-south configuration).

7Pi/4:
Time index: 19.25 years
Input current: Still increasing, but not as quickly.
Point in "Solar cycle": 3/4 of the way through "apparent cycle" 2.
Point in "Full cycle": 7/8 of the way through the "full cycle."
Sunspot count: Sunspot count is medium. Sunspot count is decreasing.

8Pi/4:
Time index: 22 years
Input current: Local maximum, highest current input, zero slope on the graph, ostensibly no change in rate of flow.
Point in "Solar cycle": End of "apparent cycle" 2.
Point in "Full cycle": End of the "full cycle."
Sunspot count: Sunspot count is at a minimum (few or not sunspots), holding steady.
Sunspot polarities: Sunspot polarities are transitional, in the process of flipping. There may be a mix of both in both hemispheres.
Overall magnetic field: Magnetic field has fully flipped. North is north and South is south.

The one stumbling block I think I'd had was was why the sun's overall magnetic field flips at solar maximum. Might need to re-read EU / ES for that one. The rest seemed to make sense. Primary current with opposing leakage current (secondary current running counter to the main current). I've probably not explained it as technically correctly as Don Scott does in The Electric Sky...

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

I see now that our sun's sunspots are not produced from low current density alone, but as Alfen describes (link) more likely from the 'looping' currents that rise above the photosphere (Solar Prominence) and this effect is proportional to the secondary current.

That's a very cogent way to put it. Thank you!

Also quite sensibly in line with Birkeland's terella experiments, as I think about it...

(The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903 -- Chapter VI. On Possible Electric Phenomena in Solar Systems and Nebulae)
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.ph ... nd_Nebulae

Specifically: Figures 247a and/or 253. Looping prominences, anyone? Similarly reminiscent of the description you just gave, Keeha...

Keeping in mind that the current flows from one side to the other. Magnetic "field lines" circle perpendicular to the path of the current. Since the current arrow points in opposite directions with respect to the observer outside the sun on opposite hemispheres of the globe (IE, toward the observer / away fro the sun on one hemisphere and away from the observer / toward the sun on the other hemisphere), the "direction" of the magnetic field lines perpendicular to the current would be reversed in opposite hemispheres.

If the "conventional current" exits the sun in the northern hemisphere (pointing away from the sun), the right hand rule dictates that the magnetic field direction curls counter-clockwise. On the southern hemisphere, likewise, the conventional current would point back toward the sun, and the right hand rule says that the magnetic field direction would curl clockwise. Is this a source of the opposite polarity of sunspots on opposite hemispheres of the globe, electrically speaking?

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

Addendum: I guess it's germane to your other question too... Hadn't read that far before posting, so I'm inserting it here:

If sunspots are areas that allow a flow of positive ions through the photosphere, how do they 'change polarity'? Is it just the orientation of the poles of a solar prominence with the poles of the sun that changes direction?

I'm wagering that it's simply the direction the ions flow from one hemisphere to the other, as that's what "conventional current" direction follows. IE, if they flow from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere, you get a counterclockwise-directed magnetic field in the northern hemisphere and a clockwise-directed magnetic field in the southern hemisphere, according to the right hand rule. If you reverse the current flow and conventional current flows from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere, then you'd have the opposite magnetic field directions. A counterclockwise-directed magnetic field in the southern hemisphere and a clockwise-directed magnetic field in the northern hemisphere.

Now, why would the charges switch direction like that? My wager would be that when the secondary currents switch direction, so too switches the direction the ions flow. Badda bing!

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

Vukcevic,
Hi there & welcome. Some interesting input! Could really use some inline keys for he graphs denoting what exactly is being graphed tho', as I can't tell from just a lookie-loo...

Other than that, there seem to be some interesting periodicities, peaks and troughs that line up in an interesting fashion.

Do the graphs only incorporate the period of the largest planets (gas giants, etc.), or do they include any factor for the smaller planets too? Just wondering.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

This seems to be a rather interesting paper from the mainstream point of view. Granted, much of it is couched in technical jargon. But, I'm surprised how much of It it relatively understand what they're saying from the pictures and the "English" parts of the discussion (even if I disagree with some of it)...

(The Sun’s Magnetic Cycle: Current State of our Understanding)
http://www.iiap.res.in/PostDocuments/Di ... 4Dec07.pdf

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

If sunspots are areas that allow a flow of positive ions through the photosphere, how do they 'change polarity'?

The mainstream also seems to say there are both a toroidal and poloidal component, which interplay and "somehow" end up flipping back and forth...

(Solar cycle - Surface magnetism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycl ... _magnetism

The dipolar component of the solar magnetic field is observed to reverse polarity around the time of solar maximum, and reaches peak strength at the time of solar minimum. Sunspots, on the other hand, are produced from a strong toroidal (longitudinally-directed) magnetic field within the solar interior. Physically, the solar cycle can be thought of as a regenerative loop where the toroidal component produces a poloidal field, which later produces a new toroidal component of sign such as to reverse the polarity of the original toroidal field, which then produces a new poloidal component of reversed polarity, and so on.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin