# Thread: Sun and Barycentre Period

1. Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
I have invented my own analysis method to find the correlation of the SSB signal with the delayed copy of itself as a function of delay, which is the definition of autocorrelation. I would be happy to reconfigure this into the standard methods used for autocorrelation.
What you're doing is not autocorrelation (which would produce values between -1 and 1), but I still wondered why you were coming up with the discrepancy. It turns out that you are not that far off from Jose--even though the abstract reports the period as 178.7 years, his calculation of the period of R, which corresponds to your calculation, is 178.81 years (see Table II), with a standard deviation of .32, so your value of 178.86 is not in disagreement.
From the table, the 9xJS value only provides 41% of the power of the signal. I did more work on this table to show the integer multiples of each subwave that are closest to 179, as follows.
Code:
```Fourier Spectrum Decomposition of Wave Function of Solar System Barycentre
Cycle	SSB Spectral Peak (Years)
A	First Planet
B	Second Planet
C	Spectral Power
D	% of total spectrum
E	Orbital Period
F	Cycle period close to 179 years
G	Cycles in 178.86 years
H	Rounded # of cycles
I	Absolute Variance from 178.86
J	Precession Ratio
K
1	19.85	Jupiter	Saturn	983	40.9%	19.85	178.67	9.010	9	0.11%	          144.24
2	12.8	Jupiter	Neptune	419	17.4%	12.78	178.92	13.996	14	0.03%	          144.04
3	13.8	Jupiter	Uranus	190	7.9%	13.81	179.52	12.952	13	0.37%	          143.55
4	35.9	Saturn	Neptune	189	7.9%	35.87	179.36	4.986	5	0.28%	          143.68
5	11.9	Jupiter	Cycle	137	5.7%	11.86	177.90	15.081	15	0.54%	          144.86
6	7.8	unknown		128	5.3%	7.80	179.40	22.931	23	0.30%	          143.65
7	45.5	Saturn	Uranus	96	4.0%	45.37	181.48	3.942	4	1.44%	          142.01
8	9.9	Jupiter	Saturn	75	3.1%	9.93	178.67	18.019	18	0.11%	          144.24
9	8.2	unknown		72	3.0%	8.20	180.40	21.812	22	0.85%	          142.86
10	29.5	Saturn	cycle	59	2.5%	29.46	176.76	6.071	6	1.19%	          145.80
11	171	Uranus	Neptune	57	2.4%	171.37	171.37	1.044	1	4.37%	          150.39

Source	Fourier Transform	E= D/SUM(D)	F =
1/(1/B - 1/C)	G=
F x I	H= 178.86/F	I= round(H)	J=
ABS(H/I-1)	K= 25771/G```
(Note due to the coding format the letters in the list at the top match to the text in the following line, eg % of total spectrum is explained by E in the notes at the bottom).

As I mentioned earlier, there are three subwaves , JN, JU and SN, which have integer multiples just above 179. With JS contributing 41%, and these three contributing 33%, it makes sense that the overall wave period would sit in between these main groups, as I found by the autocorrelation of the wave form.
Jose just combines all of the periods into a single estimate of 178.77--and noticing that that's essentially the period of 9xJS (which he calculates as 178.72), he rounds it off to 178.7. But his calculation is virtually identical to yours.

So why is it even that much greater than 178.73, the value we calculated for 9xJS. I suspect it is the influence of Neptune, and Uranus. The UN synodic period is 171.393, which is just shy of 178.73. Integrated over a complete cycle, the cross correlation should be zero, but you're integrating over 6000 years, just like Jose (which is why you get the same answer 178.86 as he does 178.81, both larger than 178.73). A complete JS/UN cycle would be complete in 178.73381/(178.73381-171.393)*178.73381 or 4351.8 years. Try re-doing your calculation with just the last 4352 years of data (or the first 4352, or any set of 4352 years inbetween), and see what value that you get.
Last edited by grapes; Yesterday at 03:24 PM. Reason: ETA: any set of 4352 years

2. the eccentricity means the conjunctions are not correct to four figures. That will make the average just an average and dependent on how many cycles you consider.

3. this is a screen shot, maybe easier to read.
Screen Shot 2018-01-20 at 14.00.41.png

4. Originally Posted by profloater
the eccentricity means the conjunctions are not correct to four figures. That will make the average just an average and dependent on how many cycles you consider.
I'm pretty sure that's why Robert is integrating over thousands of years.