Guest post by Ulric Lyons
THEORY:
1) The SS cycle is caused by heliocentric syzygies of Jupiter, Earth and Venus. The average time between the tightest alignments over 100yrs. is 11.086yrs. The alignments alternate between E opposite V in line with J in one cycle, and E and V together in line with J, in the next cycle, in sync with the magnetic reversal of the Sun.
2) The position of the center of each maximum moves relative to the tightest alignments, earlier if the cycle is augmented, and later if the cycle is diminished. C3 to C8 is a good example of this.
3) The amplitude of each cycle is governed by a) the relative positions of Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, and, b) the positions of E and V in relation to J, S and U.
4) The peaks on every cycle are largely due to syzygies of E+V, J+E, J+V and stelliums of all three. Hence the SS record can be seen to be a recording of these alignments, which usually can be correlated to stronger monthly temperature anomalies.
PROJECTIONS:
Maximum center for C24 estimated at 1yr. before the alignment center = early 2013. It will be augmented from 2010 to 2013, with peaks above C23, strongly in 2010, with August and October being likely dates for large solar flares.
The relative positions of U,S,J,E and V start to fall into diminished configurations from late 2013/early 2014, leading to a lower sunspot count in second half of the cycle. This will be accompanied by increasingly lower global temperatures from 2014 to 2020. A good measure of this can be seen by looking back 179yrs on the CET series:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Daily/HadCET_act.txt
ie., lookat years 1835 to 1841 for 2014 to 2020.
Alignments dates:
JEV syzygies: 08 09 16 09 02 08 09 07 14 10 04 22 10 09 29 very strong 11 03 03 11 12 09 12 05 19 12 10 26 13 08 13 14 01 07 14 06 13 15 03 15 15 08 15
VE syzygies: 08 06 08 09 03 27 10 01 11 10 10 11 11 08 16 12 06 06 13 03 28 14 01 11 14 10 25 15 08 15
JE syzygies: 08 07 09 09 01 24 09 08 14 10 02 28 10 09 21 11 04 06 11 10 29 12 05 13 12 12 03 13 06 19 14 01 05 14 07 24 15 02 06 15 08 26
View alignments:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
Wonderful, just wonderful. Thanks Ulric, you have confirmed the line of thought I was moving with. Many ramifications to work out. Here are the thought’s I was putting forward on another site a couple of days ago:
The graph curve shows distance of sun from barycentre wrt time and regularity of jupiter-saturn conjunctions and oppositions proves heliocentric basis. By the way, alignments of sun and venus have most effect on earth when they are also in the same plane as earth (the ecliptic) so don’t dismiss the value of geocentric views of the solar system just because they are used by astrologers. The crossing points of saturn and jupiter’s orbital planes is significantly related to sunspot numbers as noted at http://www.jupitersdance.com too. I’m not aware of any systematic investigation of the effects of earths motional transition from one side of the plane of invariance (average of the sun-jupiter plane) to the other, but I bet it has magnetospheric effects. The sun’s axis is currently at around 83 degrees to this plane, but it varies… see the paper linked above.
Clearly, the other outer planets effect is much smaller than jupiter-saturn, and the fact that their relative motion tips the sun from harmonious motion to chaotic shows how finely balanced the system is. Jupiter, saturn, uranus, and neptune return to roughly the same postions relative to each other every 178 years. The slight differences in the successive orbits have to account for the radicly different path of the sun around the barycentre in successive chaotic phases. The inner planets must have an enhanced effect, when the balance of the outer planets including jupiter and saturn is such that their forces cancel each other’s out to a larger degree.
Comment by tallbloke — June 3, 2008 @ 11:52 pm |
Cheers tallbloke, from my correlative studies, it is suprising how much influence Uranus has in its positional relationship with Jupiter and Saturn. Neptunes` effect is easily visible in syzygies and Squares to the other three, and should not be overlooked in finer evaluation of sunspot numbers or climatic variations. Mercury allignments also show up in sunspot levels. http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330
What I am finding is that the positions of particularly Earth and Venus relative to the outer planets, is responsible for a) the peaks and troughs within each sunspot cycle, b) the level of each cycle, c)and more importantly all monthly temperature variations. And yes, if two or more planets are on the plane of the eclptic when they are in alignment, it will be more intense, but the relative radial positions are clearly the dominant factor.
Comment by Ulric Lyons — June 9, 2008 @ 10:52 pm |
Hi Ulric,
I read the Ching Cheh Hung paper some time ago, along with another I can’t find at the moment. That one made a statistical analysis of aspects between Jupiter Earth and Venus which showed a beating harmonic between periods of frequent syzygies and the sunspot cycles. It was of interest insofar as the the sunspot cycles with the highest amplitudes were those which were ‘in phase’ with the periods of frequent syzygy occurence, with the opposite the case for low amplitude cycles. When I track it down again, I’ll investigate that further to see how Uranus and Neptune fit the picture.
I came across a prediction of yours elsewhere on the net that cycle 24 would have an amplitude of R130-150. Do you still stand by that? Landscheidt held that adjacent 179 year cycles anticorrelated and every other should match better according to his analysis. If so, we could already be heading for Maunder minimum type values. Feel free to contact me via email for discussion. rog at tallbloke dot net
Comment by tallbloke — June 11, 2008 @ 9:44 am |
Hi tallbloke, the Ching Cheh Hung paper: http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330 and the this by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins: http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jpdesm/sunspots/ and my own studies all show that these three planets harmonize in oppositions and conjunctions with the same period as the average sunspot cycle. The maximum of any cycle will occur close to the tightest alignments of all three bodies.
I would be surprised if C24 was not reaching 130-150 in 2010 and/or 2013, these should both be very warm years too. The amplitude I would estimate partly by the positions of the outer planets through the cycle, for example, if Neptune, Uranus, Saturn and Jupiter line up, or group, on the same side of the Sun, this would typically give a lower spot count, and lower global temperatures. The outcome though, seems to be also dependent on the angles of Earth/Venus syzygies to the outer planet line, and the result can go either way because of this. Only by synthesizing the relative positions of the Jovian planets against Earth/Venus positions, can I make sense of SSN at maximum or minimum.
Comment by Ulric Lyons. — June 12, 2008 @ 7:04 am |
Hi tallbloke,
I would expect C24 to have an elevated feature between 2010 and 2013 accompanied by higher temperatures, notably the years 2010 and 2013, much like C9, from 1847 to 1849.
http://www.spaceweather.com/java/sunspot.html
1947 to 1949 in C18 also has such a feature accompanied by higher temperatures.
I am finding the amplitude of `any part` of a cycle can be correlated to the outer planet positions, either augmenting or diminishing the effect of the Jupiter/Earth/Venus syzygies.
The frequency of the sunspot cycle is clearly in time with the tightest alignments of Jupiter, Earth and Venus. E/V conjunctions in line with Jupiter in one cycle, and E/V oppositions in line with Jupiter in the next cycle. This alternating pattern is highly likely the cause of the magnetic reversal of the Sun in each cycle.
Comment by Ulric Lyons — June 16, 2008 @ 2:48 am |
This is only a theory, of course, just as is the prevailing but nonetheless theoretical solar nuclear furnace core supposition.
Overwhelming and diverse evidence strongly suggests there is no nuclear fusion taking place in the sun’s core.
Instead, the sun, like its dormant companion Jupiter has a large planetary core surrounded by an abyssal sea of liquid hydrogen, metallic at the point it impinges upon the terra firma core.
Above the liquid hydrogen sea is a layer of hydrogen gas all of which is encapsulated by the relatively thin, roiling plasmasized photospheric sheath. The predominant reaction taking place in the photosphere is molecular hydrogen being converted to atomic hydrogen and back to molecular again under the influence of immense electrical forces.
The only fusion taking place in the sun is in the photosphere where fresh molecular hydrogen gas breaches through the photosphere we call a sunspot. In the process of the freshly emerging hydrogen being converted from molecular to atomic and back again, it becomes entrained in powerful concentric magnetohydrodynamic flows that can be described as nothing less than natural solar cyclotrons!!
One need only examine the highest resolution images of a sunspot from the 1 meter Swedish Solar Telescope at Las Palmas in the Canary Islands for confirmation that below the clearly defined photosphere is nothing more than a dark gaseous interior! http://www.astro.su.se/groups/solar/solar.html
The Jupiter/Earth/Venus syzygies cause volcanic eruptions in the sun’s planetary core which volatilize the liquid hydrogen impinging upon its surface. The gas boils up through the ocean and over pressurizes the gaseous envelope between the liquid sea and the photosphere which results in a breach called a sunspot through which the excess gas escapes.
There is also evidence suggesting the presence of superconduction phenomena associated with solar emmissions.
Of course, all of the tortured logic, strained ad hoc hypotheses and special laws in support of the solar nuclear furnace theory will not survive the test of time and the truth will one day prevail!
Comment by Solsearcher — July 23, 2008 @ 11:45 pm |
Do you think its the alignment of the planets that has the effect? Or is it the idea that before and after alignment you would have this sort of focused pulling-apart force that would disturb some strata or other within the sun allowing matter and thermal energy to be released more readily than at other times?
Comment by Graeme Bird — August 28, 2008 @ 7:29 am |
Actually since the sun is itself rotating it makes sense that alignment would be the thing.
Comment by Graeme Bird — August 30, 2008 @ 9:14 am |
A recent study I have done shows that the absolute position of maximum and minimum in many solar cycles falls on syzygies of Jupiter/Uranus or Jupiter/Neptune, this pattern can be disturbed when Jupiter and Saturn are closer together on the same side of the Sun, and the maximum or minimum may occur there instead.
Comment by Ulric Lyons — December 4, 2008 @ 7:27 am |
Sounds interesting Ulric, can you give us some idea of the type of alignments, I have posted a table on the “Are Neptune and Uranus the Major Players in Solar Grand Minima” thread showing the peak dates on Desmoulins graph using the J+E+V alignments. Are they the same maximum dates you used or did you the actual sunspot cycle max dates?
Comment by gsharp — December 4, 2008 @ 10:06 pm |