Spotless Sun

[vukcevic]

Jupiter/ Saturn angular relationship is not only critical factor. Electric and magnetic properties of heliosphere are not consistent along their orbits, hence start and strength of a cycle may be affected by these additional variables.
http://www.issibern.ch/teams/EUV*Irr/heliosphere.jpg
Sun is moving through an adjacent interstellar gas cloud in approximately the direction of the constellation Scorpio, with a speed of about 25 km/sec (900 mph). As a result, an interstellar wind with that speed is blowing through our planetary system, like the wind felt while driving an open convertible.

[junglelord]

Where did you get that graphic vukcevic?


I got this from NASA Space Weather today.
I have been going to that site daily since 1996


I have been deeply interested in space weather long before I knew of the EU in Dec of 2006....actually ten years.

I told everyone in my neck of the woods, here in south eastern Ontario, Canada, that this summer would suck.
They kept asking would it get better, I told them no, as there are no sunspots. I was right. Coldest summer I can remember.

Either way, here is the article for sunspots on the web page today, Oct 11, 2009

DEEP QUIET: Today, the sun is entering its 13th consecutive day without sunspots. Just a few years ago, such a stretch of blank suns would have been unthinkable. Now it's routine. So far this year, the sun has been spotless 79% of the time, topping the 73% mark recorded in 2008. Long after many forecasters thought solar minimum would be finished, the quiet is not only continuing, but actually deepening. Are sunspots gone for good? Researchers discuss the question in an article from Science@NASA.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009 ... nspots.htm

[4realScience]

Thanks vukcevic. I also found this. Don't know if it's accurate, yet. I've seen the 60 degree figure several times in my searches though.

Cardboard model of the galactic alignment.
The purple base represents the galactic plane, the blue plane intersecting it at 62.9°is the solar
plane, and the small green plane intersecting the solar plane (at 23°) is the earth's celestial disk.
Note that the solar plane is in line with the galactic centre, shown as a small yellow spot.
The toothpicks represent the axis of each plane. You can see that the axis of the earth and sun point
directly to the galactic centre during the galactic alignment.

Note that Earth crosses the galactic ecliptic once a year and Jupiter once every 11 earth years. And so with all the planets once in their year.

I read what you said about the gas clouds. Since you model is so accurate already I must believe cloud (plasma cell?) effects do not dominate.

If the spots are being caused by our gas giants diverting power away from the sun then might we also expect to see them, the gas giants, shining more brightly at just those times? And more dimly at the opposite node in the cycle? Is the Birkelund power is being diverted because they are 'loads' of opportunity?

If that were so then the combination of the sunspots and the gas giant radiance variations would over time flesh out the geometry of the Birkelund current sheaths.

(I am still searching for the right 3d models of solar system and galaxy. Can't draw it out yet.)

[Lloyd]

* Here are a few more views, but maybe not much improvement.
1.
2.
3.
4. This one doesn't show orientation, but just the heliosphere etc:

[Lloyd]

* Back to the main topic: Sun Surprisingly Active During Low Point in Cycle:

* I found that accidentally at http://ancientcivilitazionandufo.blogsp ... chive.html
* The caption says:

An illustration of the solar wind as it streaks by the Earth. When the solar cycle was at a minimum level in 1996, the sun sprayed Earth with relatively few, weak high-speed streams (left). In contrast, the sun bombarded Earth with stronger and longer-lasting streams in 2008 (right) even though the solar cycle was again at a minimum level

* This fits Don Scott's views; doesn't it? It makes sense to me that, if sunspots are due to a weakening electric current input, lack of sunspots would be due to stronger current. Am I right?

[junglelord]

Nice pictures, but they are at odds.
Counter-clockwise


Clockwise


I believe the solar system is moving counterclockwise around the galaxy, is that correct?

[moses]

In Dec 21 1998 the Sun was 6 degrees away from the galactic
centre, which is as close as it gets.
Mo

[rcglinsk]

NASA's finest alchemists have posted another article about disappearing sunspots.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009 ... htm?friend

[4realScience]

heh, rcglinsk.

Lloyd, in answer I find this in Thornhills's 'Twinkle twinkle':

The Sun’s interplanetary magnetic field increases in strength with sunspot number. Electrically, the relationship is essential, since the interplanetary magnetic field is generated by the current flow to and from the Sun. As the power increases, sunspot numbers rise (reflecting current input) and the magnetic field strengthens.

I'm glad you asked that because I remembered it the other way around. I go with Thornhill and Birkelund on that: increased current supplied to the Sun results in Sun spots (and maybe global warming?).

Nice graphics, all. Me, I'm still searching for historic radiance data on the gas giants to overlay. By the way, Sun's path is a helix, don't you think, along the galactic orbit, as opposed to a sine wave (not that it makes much difference the galactic disc is so thick). I am also confused as to our galactic orbital rotation direction, needs to be cleared up (but would guess the bent-back spiral arms show it).

Best Regards...

[Lloyd]

* Maybe some of these are better images of the Sun in Orion's Arm of the galaxy [Click on them, so I don't waste more space showing images]:
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/ ... eage01.jpg
That's from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/ar ... 4R1.DTL&o=
http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d ... way_02.jpg
http://www.ras.ucalgary.ca/CGPS/where/p ... st_big.gif
http://webspinners.com/dlblanc/climate/ ... erturb.gif
http://whyfiles.org/017planet/images/gascloud.gif
http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d ... rms_02.jpg
These are from http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums/p/ ... 81241.aspx

[nick c]

This fits Don Scott's views; doesn't it? It makes sense to me that, if sunspots are due to a weakening electric current input, lack of sunspots would be due to stronger current. Am I right?

Well not exactly. Let me put out my interpretation, of the work of Dr. C. E. R. Bruce which I referenced earlier in this thread [url2=http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 7&start=45]here[/url2]. (post July 25, 2009, 5:23 pm)
Here is a link to C. E. R. Bruce's work which was many years ahead of its' time:
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
Keep in mind that Juergens, who originated the "externally powered Sun" theory, was inspired by the work of Bruce.

Sunspots are caused by a weakening electric current, locally. That is to say within the immediate area of the sunspot. But, for the big picture, increased electric current input into the Sun increases sunspot activity (see the above post by 4realScience). At first glance this may seem to be a contradiction. The key is faculae, which are bright spots on the Sun always associated with sunspots. Faculae are enormous electrical discharges or arcs more powerful than the normal state of the photosphere, that is why they appear brighter than the rest of the photosphere. After the facula (arc) discharges, the current is now (locally) neutralized, the anode tufting of the photosphere in the affected area is gone, effectively punching a hole in the photosphere creating a sunspot, giving us a look into the cooler interior. As Bruce noted, sunspots are always preceded by faculae, though the appearance of faculae does not always result in a sunspot.
So a facula, as a larger than usual (for the photosphere) arc discharge, appear and (if there is enough power) punch a hole in the photosphere. The electrical stress in the local area is temporarily, for the life of the sunspot, relieved. But sometimes the faculae does not have enough power to create a sunspot. So that is why faculae always preceed a sunspot, but sunspots do not always follow faculae.
Sunspots are the result of faculae, which are a result of the increase in electric (secondary) currents beneath surface of the Sun, which in turn, are the result of an increase in the galactic birkeland current input to the Sun.
Does that make any sense? Well that is the way I read Bruce (and Juergens with regard to galactic input.)

nick c

[jjohnson]

Lloyd, number 3 was the best graphic tonight!
J

[4realScience]

I am still working on the alignments for the graphic I want to draw. I think Thornhill's latest article based on the new NASA IBEX (Interstellar Boundary Explorer) image is material. I think it shows the Birkelund current's local geometry.

20/10/2009 Electric Sun Verified: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=74fgmwne

My basic idea is that sunspot minima and maxima occur when the sun, the gas giants, and the 'cord' ( Birkelund cable) line up. The Birkelund current is DC always. So in one case of alignment, the gas giants will steal current from the sun as they are ahead of it in the stream.

EU Rules (again)!

[seasmith]

junglelord wrote:

I believe the solar system is moving counterclockwise around the galaxy, is that correct?

JL,

Would depend on if one's looking down on the North pole or up at the South pole. [erin visa versa ]

~The 'Right-Hand Rule' can be mirrored.

s

[seasmith]

Some Periodicities in the Solar system
compared with Sunspot cycle
(by P.A.Semi, 2009-2010)


Lots of graphs

http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Periodiciti ... urrent.pdf