I have a comparison graph of SC5 & SC24 that I am updating monthly that might be interesting to watch on the Layman’s count page:
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50

I am not convinced by the L&P effect just yet….perhaps its just a record of the falling magnetic field of SC23 which now leads into a very weak SC24.

In this mathematical construct, using just Newtonian laws of motion, as mentioned above and in the diagram reproduced above, the Solar System Centre of Mass is a fixed point travelling at a constant speed in an (almost) straight line, as this is a balanced, closed sytem with all the forces resolving to zero at the SSCM. This was used to prove how sunspots are produced but the unitentional discovery was, that Fred realised that the diagrams showed that the earth – sun distance is constantly varying but none the less predictable; further more, it is a simple matter to then represent the varying distances in terms of variation in energy received by the earth.

In reading the above articles it is obvious that the methods used above always result in unanswered questions or some degree of ‘fudging’ to make things fit the argument. Fred’s method suffers none of these problems beacause everything fits perfectly and he continues to do further research that dovetails perfectly with accepted events, whether they be sun spot records/predictions or historical weather events.

The following blog gives a lot of inside information regarding the methododology and pragmatic arguments used;

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/about-frederick-baileys-textbook-of-gravity-sunspots-and-climate/

REPLY: Thanks Howard, I have read your fathers et al paper many times, and the orbit spiral diagram is enlightening. The solar acceleration theory has merit but the varying Earth/Sun distance due to an Earth orbit axis point of the SSB does not hold weight scientifically. Sometimes one part of your theory can be off base with the rest remaining intact.

Thanks for the reply, on which I have no further comment at present.

However, I want to say a couple of things further. First, having read Wilson’s paper further, but not yet in total detail, I am more convinced of the empirical evidence in favour of planetary influences driving grand minima. But I see a disconnect in evidence here. Carsten Arnholm, in his replies to the 2009/04/11 blog, stated that he had done simulations/calculations which showed that orbital angular momentum of Sun and planets was constant, leaving no room for modulation of the rotational AM of the Sun. But you seem to be saying different. Of course, one might need high precision in these calculations, because changes of velocity on the surface of the Sun might require relatively little angular momentum transfer to drive them.

The second thing is that I want to consider again the possibility of a tidal influence. If you look at my table in my Comment 16 to 2009/04/11, you will see that VEJ are the biggest tidal players. Now, the phase locking which explains why Cycles 23 and 24 should be long is entirely in terms of VEJ syzygies, so this favours a tidal effect. In the future I may want to propose some sort of tidal graph to compare with the S v SSB AM graph.

Previously, Leif Svalgaard has discounted tidal effects on account of the calcualted height of J’s tide on the Sun being tiny. But I think this does not properly account for the dynamics of the Sun. It is not a thin layer of liquid lying on a solid. The plasma at the surface is “floating” there, in equilibrium between strong gravity pulling it down and strong radiation and atomic collisions pushing it up. Therefore I think that Jupiter could raise larger tides than one might at first think. But I don’t know how to do the mathematics to support this idea.

Anyway, if Jupiter could raise reasonable tides, then Saturn, in certain positions (notably 45 degrees from conjunction or opposition), could grab those tidal bulges and apply a torque to them from its own tidal effect. Since Jupiter and Saturn revolve slowly, a small effect can build up over time into a significant one (there’s far less friction compared with terrestrial tides).

To summarize: is there proof of a small transfer between orbital and rotational AM, and irrespective of that answer can the tidal effects amount to something greater than might at first sight seem plausible?

(Await Arnholm and Svalgaard devastating demolition at this point.)

Rich.

REPLY: We are talking about 2 separate factors that could affect Solar modulation and timing. My research points towards AM being responsible for solar cycle modulation as well as grand minima. The tidal research tends to line up with solar cycle lengths and could be responsible for the 11 year average cycle…SC24 max will be a good test for the theory.

I have looked hard at the evidence Arnholm has released and I have several doubts. For one he uses the SSB as axis point for the calculation of planet AM, he also does not use JPL data but calculates the AM using his own methods. Also his spreadsheet numbers on the total planet AM variation shows no variance throughout the years but shows a modulation on his graph…something wrong here. Just for the sake of the argument I would like to see the exercise done properly using JPL data. What must be remembered is that both projects are just a wiggle matching exercise, we can only compare the trends which involves scaling one set of data to fit over the other.

The AM project performed by myself and Gerry is accurate and quite different from Arnholm’s project, but I would like to get some confirmation on the method used. The inertial frame logic in particular.

On the tidal values Saturn is considered too far away to have any affect with Jupiter and Venus having the greatest power (vertical). Semi has done some work on possible sideways effects of tides instead of vertical, there is some discussion here on tallbloke’s blog. http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/meet-the-new-kepler-p-a-semi/

This is really interesting, since if orbital angular momentum is not completely conserved then it must go somewhere else, presumably into the spin of the planets or Sun, and the latter is most plausible.

I want to clarify for you something about “axis point”. Angular momentum is conserved about *any* fixed point in an inertial frame of reference, and the barycentre (SSB) is the logical point to use, and will be more reliable in avoiding errors. So, if it were me, I would calculate relatve to SSB first, and then if at any time I wanted it relative to the instantaneous position of the Sun, I would do the linear translation.

Now, the planets don’t revolve around the SSB, in fact they don’t revolve around anything! They are mainly attracted by the Sun and so follow roughly elliptical paths around it, but only “roughly” because of the perturbations of other planets.

I hope this helps,
Rich.

REPLY: Hi Rich, calculations comparing the solar AM and planet AM using the SSB for both have been done but perhaps this method does not show the whole picture. AM can be calculated from any point but I am interested in the actual AM so proper comparisons can be done. My research and thinking suggests that gravity rules ie the revolving planets must orbit around the central gravitational body (Sun) and other planets in the vicinity via their gravity slightly push and pull on the intended orbit line that is controlled by the major body. This changes the velocity of the orbiting planet with in turn changes distance to the orbit axis point. My research and others shows a very different outcome when comparing planet AM using the 2 axis points, with only the Sun centered graphs showing the perturbations.

Having correlated the geomagnetic activity and global temperature of the 1900’s
and finding a gap in singular causal effect (including pre-perihelion transition).
I am awaiting the coming decades deep cycle oceanic research before concluding
little covenant in extreme CO2 mitigation and political brake being put on
harmonic technological investment to avoid 30yr – 80yr hydro-cycle repercussion.
The road to truth is littered with the echoes of loud voices and our own.

Rejoined organic atmospheric nucleation is easily seen as a further stabiliser to
subtractive solar forcing (low level cloud), which will remain as constant
as the Sun and planets make it.

As NASA reporting of CME is complimented by SSB and AM, the delineating
inclination of individual planetary body eccentricities from celestial line
may provide AM astrophysicists with sure enough depth to produce ranges of
threshold plasma recoil (CME) as regional sub-coronal quantum polarisation peaks
created from corona to major element barycentre displacement torsions;
i.e. the work cost of maintaining orbiting planetary mass, after nebulas reformation,
is expelled mass as waste product, which is ultimately conserved where received.
The basic AM elements are adequate to put store and plant by at the (sub)decadal,
while this greater detail will support more science dependant work
such as space scheduling, Earthing forecasts and anomalous seasonal preparations.

More, in this case, is most definitely better,
where joviality makes the world go round
just that bit less unexpectedly.

Having said that.
I’ve discerned that the power of Jupiter has waned
during the scrutiny of collective effect, and the
element characterisation transforming AM calibration to a level where to be in
‘ignorance is blistering and costly’ for businesses and governments.

If a pinch of AM is left in the ‘song remains the same’ pouch
the pipe will continue to smoke blind business and agriculturalists alike,
while marginal herders lose more grazing.
Generational change is an immense ball to get moving,
especially with competing global influences.

AMs’ political and modelling popularity appears to be based on the above
uncertainty of hydro-cycle latency v socialist energy transition critical mass.

I sure the Annual Landscheit Lectures and Conferences will provide
enough momentum to bridge Civil Engineering encompassment.

Kind regards
Iain
verdanarch

Many thanks for your diligent work.
As a steady state universe or ‘red-shift tidal effect’ collaborator since 1995 I am delighted such valuable science is held in proven light.
Whilst AM research is furthered by academics across the world, we must hope that the fuel
to energy transition investment which supports such needed education in areas where the
need is greatest, will continue progressing toward a socio-gaia-logically
harmonic perpetuity, rather than not. The varying perspectives of
proportional climatological forcing attributed to SSB and therefore AM,
is a tricky subject.

Various long term institutes and organisations have recorded the history of
planetary conjunctions and Earthly chronologies,
but relatively little applied fresh data,
and no year-to-year/decade-to-decade forecasting credibility
except 1 in 50-100yr event schedules.

Still, further refinement and the established core principle on these pages
will refract well through the prism of harvest enablement where
cooperative progression is best served by your endeavours.

Many thanks again. I look forward to input on
gravitational and magnetic focusing in the future.

Philosophically I much prefer a naturalised version of the static evolving universe,
where matter in a given area of massive space becomes depleted, inactive or
expended, whilst areas like our own known universe are constantly exchanging
galactic expulsions, supernova particulates and planetary debris,
as opposed to the LaVoilette spontaneous micro creation theory of
Sub-Quantum Kinetics.

After all, many scientists are oft occasioned towards reductionism to explain
confounding elements that arise from Occum departures,
like solar dynamo purists who tend an ignorance of our Solar Bolas at our peril.

Cheers again
Iain

Summary of my model. It explains:

1) Long and short sunspot cycles

2) Very low sunspot activity.

3) Why there is a difference between the sunspot numbers South and North of the equator (slightly different speed Southern and Northern polar field)

4) Why there is very low sunspot activity South or North of the equator, while there is sunspot activity in the opposite place!

5) Outburst of magnetic field activity are seen on the theoretical model. Even in declining and low sunspot activity!

6) Why Sunspots ABOVE the equator appear with the PLUS first… and UNDER the equator with the MINUS first….or vice versa

7) How a 3 dimensional model of the sun can be constructed

A Theoretical Calculation of the Sunspot Cycle
With the help of a simple integral, a theoretical sunspot cycle of eleven years can be imitated (copied) as follows:

The polar magnetic field of the sun rotates (theoretically) in about 37.2 days; the equatorial field in 25.75 days (the average of the last 75 years: see Long Term Variations of the Torsional Oscillations of the Sun, Solar Physics 170: 373/388, 1997, by Dirk K. Callebaut). At a certain moment, the equatorial field takes over from the polar field. Therefore we can only investigate the relationship between the field of the sun and an independent observer by measuring only each take-over movement. Through this we always compare only two variants: the converging positions of the fields in relation to the shifted point of observation. In fact we are doing nothing more than calculating the winding process of the magnetic field of the sun. At this moment we can calculate the numbers of the fields together with the converging position:

Subject: Re: Re:

Speed in degrees of the equator field: 360 ¸ 25.75 = 13.9805825 degrees

Speed in degrees of the polar field: 360 ¸ 37.19 = 9.6800215 degrees

The difference in degrees between the equator and polar field is: 13.9805825 – 9.6800215 = 4.30055848 degrees

The polar field is taken over by the equatorial field after the following number of days:

360 ¸ 4.30055848 = 83.710058 days = 1 bit

The number of circles traveled by the equatorial field is:

83.710058 ¸ 25.75 = 3.25087545

The number of circles traveled by the polar field is:

83.710058 ¸ 37.19 = 2.25087545

0.25087545 circle forms a bit and will be used as a basic unit in the calculation

First point:

0.25087545 x 360 = degrees

= 91,3 degrees

= A

Put this in relation with an observer who travels the length of the mean of the polar and equatorial field in one day.

Total length equator field = 4.370.880 km

Mean of Polar field = between 700.000 km and 900.000 km = 800.000 km

4.370.880 + 800.000 = 5.170.880 km

mean =2.585.440 km

=> This is about equal with the speed of an object that travels 360 days around the sun in one year (plus/ minus)

=> To be corrected when we know the circumference of the polar field more excactly

Comparisson speed earth

Speed earth = 29,77 km sec
29,77 x sidereal day = 2.565.000 km/day

Conclusion

Point B goes in plus minus 360 days around the sun

in this case = 83, 7 days = 83,7 degrees because days is same as degrees
= B

A – B = end formula

When you calculate and subtract both graphics, the result will be the difference between the magnetic field of the sun and an independent observer. Filling in the previous numbers in the Excel file this results in a sunspot cycle of 54.5 bits. 54.5 x 83.710058 days = 4,562.2 days = 12.49 years.

Note:

The changes of speed of both the equatorial and polar fields were not taken into account.

Sunspot cycle of 9 years

We change the hypothetical speed of the polar field into 37.16 days:

360 ¸ 25.75 = 13.9805825 degrees

360 ¸ 37.16 = 9.68783638 degrees

Difference = 4.292746117 degrees

360 ¸ 4.292746117 = 83.86240187 days = 1 bit

83.86240187 ¸ 25.75 = 3.2567923

0.2567923 circle = 1 bit

When you put these numbers in the Excel file the result is a sunspot cycle of 42 bits.

42 x 83.86240187 = 3,522.2 days = 9.64 years.

Important conclusions:

1) Only a small change in the speed of the polar or equatorial field can result in a considerable prolongation or deceleration of the sunspot cycle.

2) From a mathematical point of view there has to exist a very close correlation between the equatorial and polar field.

3) The sunspot cycle together with the polar reversal of the magnetic field of the sun lasts longer when the polar field rotates somewhat slower. A difference of only (!) 0.0807 percent causes the cycle to rise from 9.64 to 12.49 years!

Third example: the cycle of 11 years

Speed of the polar field: 37.176 days

360 ¸ 37.176 = 9.683666882 degrees

360 ¸ 25.75 = 13.9805825 degrees

Difference: 4.296915618 degrees

360 ¸ 4.296915618 = 83.7810262 days = 1 bit

83.7810262 ¸ 25.75 = 3.25363208 circle

0.25363208 circle = 1 bit

When you put these data in the Excel file, the result is a sunspot cycle of 48.0 bits.

48.0 x 83.7810 = 4,021.5 days = 11.01 years.

Very low sunspot activity.

Equator field: 25.75
Polar field: 37.291

Very long cycle
=> ALMOST ZERO SUNSPOT ACTIVITY!

Further findings:

1. Sunpot Cycle of 11 Years

First possibility

Polar Field: 37.176

Equatorial Field: 25.75

37.176 : 25.75 = 1.4437

Polar field = 1.4437 times slower then equator field

2. No Sunspots

Polar Field: 37.291

Equatorial Field: 25.75

37.291 : 25.75 = 1.4482

Difference between (1) and (2) = 1.4482 – 1.4437 = 0.0045

Polar field = 1.4482 times slower then equator field

3. Sunpot Cycle of 11 Years

Second possibility

Polar Field: 37.4075

Equatorial Field: 25.75

37.4075 : 25.75 = 1.4527

Polar field = 1.4527 times slower then equator field

Difference between (2) and (3) = 1.4527 – 1.4482 = 0.0045

Same difference like between (1) and (2)

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SUNSPOTS

1. If you take the ABS from the final formula then you find the following

A. The Sunspot cycle from 25.75 and 37.176 = POSITIVE

B. The Sunspot cycle from 25.75 and 37.4075 = NEGATIVE

2. If Sunspots ABOVE the equator appear with the PLUS first… then they appear UNDER the equator with the MINUS first

Conclusions from (1) and (2)

a. If the Southern Polarity field from the sun has a speed of 37.176 then the Northern Polarity field has a speed from 37.4075

b. These speeds must change in the OPPOSITE with a new cycle…. because sunspots have then the OPPOSITE value from the previous one

37.176 has to change in 37.4075

37.4075 has to change in 37.176

3 DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF THE SUNSPOT CYCLE

I tried to reconstruct a 3 dimensional model of the sunspot cycle

Use the constant values of 1.4437 and 1.4527 of the 2 sunspot cycles

Then decrease the speed of the equator under 25.75. Example 25.5

Results:

1. The Sunspot cycle from 25.75 and 37.176 DECREASES in length

2. The Sunspot cycle from 25.75 and 37.4075 INCREASES in length

Then increase the speed of the equator above 25.75. Example 26.0

Results:

The OPOSITE from the previous findings happen!

1. The Sunspot cycle from 25.75 and 37.176 INCREASES in length

2. The Sunspot cycle from 25.75 and 37.4075 DECREASES in length

CONCLUSIONS

a. The average speed of the equator field rules the sunspot cycle ( fastest speed last 75 years = 25.35 days. Slowest speed = 26.28 days)

b. With the values from prof Callebaut is must be possible to recalculate the last sunpot cycles and possible future sunspot cycles

c. There is a mathematical principle in this theory that gives a constant sunspot cycle of 11 years (shorter and longer cycles are also possible)

Final conclusion:

The used formula’s are basic…With more advanced programs it has to be possible to calculate sunspot cycles.

REPLY: Thanks Patrick….I need some time to absorb this, but on the surface it looks very encouraging.

Truth may be your only companion for a while.

But ultimately truth cannot be defeated by popular dogmas.

The Sun is jerked around the Solar System’s Barycenter, whether or not Al Gore, the UN’s IPCC or Anthony Watts will admit that fact.

That is what produces cycles of sunspots as it relocates the Sun’s energetic, compact, highly magnetic core relative to the solar surface.

I appreciate your efforts to keep this issue before the public.

Keep up the good work! Decades of deceit in science will be exposed if the spotlight of public attention succeeds in actually melting the dirty Climategate iceberg!

Happy New Year!
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

REPLY: Thanks for your support Oliver, science always has a way of sorting out the truth but unfortunately the process can be rocky sometimes. I am in no hurry and will enjoy watching those who have tried to suppress science finally have their day in court.

REPLY: Good question …some people have also observed most spots seem to occur on the Earth side as well. If we go back to sept 09 the SSB is between Earth and Sun ( Earth in conjunction with Jupiter. Jupiter always has the SSB between it and the Sun), in dec 09 we have moved around 90 deg from that point in an anti clockwise direction or about 1/4 of the orbit, the SSB to Sun position in that time changes little. To my memory most of the spots lately have appeared not long after coming onto the earth side. If during sept the spots were appearing as they are about to leave the earth side face that would suggest they have moved 3/4 of the way around the Sun while our position has changed by 1/4 and the SSB is little changed. This would suggest the two are not linked, but I might be missing something. I might watch this starting point of the spot more carefully in future.