Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 32

Thread: Sun spots and planets

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544

    Sun spots and planets

    In my first post when i joined this forum i proposed a link between sunspots and mainly Jupiter, and a mechanism, disturbance of the plasma flows due in my ideas to Coriolis accelerations. Now in New Scientist it is reported that Frank Stefani in Germany has come up with the same idea using Jupiter and Venus, the two planets that most affect the sun by their gravity. Plus Earth the third power. They associate it with the alpha effect. In looking closely at Jupiter I found the correlation went out of phase but as a resonance effect maybe Stefani can explain that? I remind that Jupiterís orbit is eccentric also, which I ssstill find significant in its effect on the sun.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    7,014
    I saw multiple reports on the new paper by a team studying this.

    https://www.newsweek.com/suns-solar-...scover-1441753

    https://www.newscientist.com/article...not-astrology/

    I almost started an ATM thread a decade ago about this. I doubt very much the consensus has changed based on this paper.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigabyte View Post
    I saw multiple reports on the new paper by a team studying this.

    https://www.newsweek.com/suns-solar-...scover-1441753

    https://www.newscientist.com/article...not-astrology/

    I almost started an ATM thread a decade ago about this. I doubt very much the consensus has changed based on this paper.
    Yes I did start an ATM thread but my hypothesis was direct driving due to increased Coriolis when jupiter is closer and not a resonance which can persist through going out of phase with the sunspot cycle. The frustrating thing is the length of the sun spot record because if you take just a few, the correlation is good. The latter is not a true periodic but then effects like Venus, maybe, could mess that up. The barycentre spiral is quite complex if you consider all the planets and that may be just confusing. I can’ t find that thread now.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,652
    I don't understand what you were attributing to the Coriolis effect. Could you give a mathematical presentation?

    I see no merit in attributing anything here to the position of the barycenter. It is not a physical object that could stir the pot, and it is not any sort of discontinuity in the gravitational forces on different parts of the Sun. The gravitational gradient is distributed smoothly over the width of the Sun, whether it is from a small nearby planet such as Venus or a large and distant one such as Jupiter.

    I can envision the possibility that a small oscillation in the magnitude of the tidal force could cause a large oscillation in the perturbed body if it is at a resonant frequency. That appears to be what the authors of the linked abstract are considering.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    7,014
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Yes I did start an ATM thread but my hypothesis was direct driving due to increased Coriolis when jupiter is closer and not a resonance which can persist through going out of phase with the sunspot cycle.
    I was looking at Jupiter and Saturn and hypothesizing a magnetic perturbation, but either our records are wrong or that wasn't it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    I don't understand what you were attributing to the Coriolis effect. Could you give a mathematical presentation?

    I see no merit in attributing anything here to the position of the barycenter. It is not a physical object that could stir the pot, and it is not any sort of discontinuity in the gravitational forces on different parts of the Sun. The gravitational gradient is distributed smoothly over the width of the Sun, whether it is from a small nearby planet such as Venus or a large and distant one such as Jupiter.

    I can envision the possibility that a small oscillation in the magnitude of the tidal force could cause a large oscillation in the perturbed body if it is at a resonant frequency. That appears to be what the authors of the linked abstract are considering.
    At the time of my ATM posts, which I do not feel ready to revive despite this new study, the hypothesis is simple. The sun rotates, not as a solid but at different rate with lattitude and depth. So it's complex but looking at the equator there is a net radial flow of hot plasma with magnetic forces. However there must also be tangential forces as any mass moves radially into a faster moving zone. That is Coriolis acceleration equal to
    2 dr/dt w
    Where w is the angular rate. This is a sideways vector.
    Now looking at he tidal effect of just one planet, Jupiter, which is about 10% eccentric, this is a tangential force variation which adds to the tangential component of the radial flows in a gas, or plasma, body.
    The hot plasma finally radiates heat away and cools so it begins-its radial return into the lower layers.
    The columns of flow thus are strongly rotating in a magnified example of what we experience in Earth atmosphere. The vortex nature becomes clear as sunspots.
    Now I am not sure if these flows have time constants which can display resonance. My hypothesis was that the changing tidal effect of Jupiter directly change the radial flows. But other planets must also have the same effect thus modifying the simple forcing frequency from Jupiter. Maybe this can explain the variations in the period of the sun spot cycle.
    To do a maths model I need to know the outer third flow rates of the sun with the vorticity of a typical equatorial column inside the sun. The tidal and Coriolis accelerations are smaller than the magnetic forces, I guess that is a good thing for us, otherwise the sunspot variation could be lethal. But I note that the eccentricity of Jupiter far exceeds our moon. However, I stopped when it seemed from the ancient sunspot record was out of phase with Jupiter eccentricity as compared with recent sun spot maxima and minima.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,652
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    At the time of my ATM posts, which I do not feel ready to revive despite this new study, the hypothesis is simple. The sun rotates, not as a solid but at different rate with lattitude and depth. So it's complex but looking at the equator there is a net radial flow of hot plasma with magnetic forces. However there must also be tangential forces as any mass moves radially into a faster moving zone. That is Coriolis acceleration equal to
    2 dr/dt w
    Where w is the angular rate. This is a sideways vector.
    Now looking at he tidal effect of just one planet, Jupiter, which is about 10% eccentric, this is a tangential force variation which adds to the tangential component of the radial flows in a gas, or plasma, body.
    The hot plasma finally radiates heat away and cools so it begins-its radial return into the lower layers.
    The columns of flow thus are strongly rotating in a magnified example of what we experience in Earth atmosphere. The vortex nature becomes clear as sunspots.
    Now I am not sure if these flows have time constants which can display resonance. My hypothesis was that the changing tidal effect of Jupiter directly change the radial flows. But other planets must also have the same effect thus modifying the simple forcing frequency from Jupiter. Maybe this can explain the variations in the period of the sun spot cycle.
    To do a maths model I need to know the outer third flow rates of the sun with the vorticity of a typical equatorial column inside the sun. The tidal and Coriolis accelerations are smaller than the magnetic forces, I guess that is a good thing for us, otherwise the sunspot variation could be lethal. But I note that the eccentricity of Jupiter far exceeds our moon. However, I stopped when it seemed from the ancient sunspot record was out of phase with Jupiter eccentricity as compared with recent sun spot maxima and minima.
    My bold. Correction: The Moon's orbital eccentricity is greater than that of Jupiter.

    Let's assume for the sake of argument that tidal effects from the planets are strong enough to perturb the Sun's electromagnetic dynamics that give us sunspots, and look at the cycles. Venus and Jupiter have approximately equal tidal gradients, so there will be a strong spring tide - neap tide cycle with a period of about 118 days. Earth contributes a term with about 40% of the gradient and a corresponding period of about 200 days. Each of these two periods is half the interval between conjunctions with Jupiter, as there are two spring tides and two neap tides between conjunctions. Superimposed on this is the slow pulsation of Jupiter's component as a result of its eccentricity, with a period of 11.86 years, significantly longer than the mean interval between sunspot maxima. The challenge is to find out whether or not there is some sort of sum or difference beat that matches the sunspot cycle. We also need to know whether or not there is a resonance at that frequency.

    As always, don't take my line of thought as gospel. I am here to learn as well as comment.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    My bold. Correction: The Moon's orbital eccentricity is greater than that of Jupiter.

    Let's assume for the sake of argument that tidal effects from the planets are strong enough to perturb the Sun's electromagnetic dynamics that give us sunspots, and look at the cycles. Venus and Jupiter have approximately equal tidal gradients, so there will be a strong spring tide - neap tide cycle with a period of about 118 days. Earth contributes a term with about 40% of the gradient and a corresponding period of about 200 days. Each of these two periods is half the interval between conjunctions with Jupiter, as there are two spring tides and two neap tides between conjunctions. Superimposed on this is the slow pulsation of Jupiter's component as a result of its eccentricity, with a period of 11.86 years, significantly longer than the mean interval between sunspot maxima. The challenge is to find out whether or not there is some sort of sum or difference beat that matches the sunspot cycle. We also need to know whether or not there is a resonance at that frequency.

    As always, don't take my line of thought as gospel. I am here to learn as well as comment.
    Thanks, I had not appreciated that the moon was so eccentric. I’m sure you are aware that in damped forced vibrations a forcing frequency can be someway off the natural frequency and cause damped resonance effects . In a mixed forcing frequency, which we have of course with the planets, and then the complication that the rotation of the Sun is itself variable in latitude and depth, it seems to me a plausible hypothesis that the tidal effects do affect the ferocity of those vortices such that sunspots form.
    Unfortunately it is bound to be a complex situation and when there are several frequencies present you can get a chaotic situation mathematically as we can see in a multi jointed pendulum toy. I assume that the central heat driver is more or less constant but the complex flow of heat out from the core of the Sun is full of reinforcing and cancelling eddies. Any mechanical effect such as I suggest will also interact with the plasma magnetic and current forces. But in my view in relation to this thread and the OP this title gravity hypothesis seems much more likely than the kind of resonance with the Galactic Centre that has been proposed here. I only mention it because the sunspot frequency and the total sun output are both of practical interest to us here on earth.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    In my first post when i joined this forum i proposed a link between sunspots and mainly Jupiter, and a mechanism, disturbance of the plasma flows due in my ideas to Coriolis accelerations. Now in New Scientist it is reported that Frank Stefani in Germany has come up with the same idea using Jupiter and Venus, the two planets that most affect the sun by their gravity.
    The paper is A Model of a Tidally Synchronized Solar Dynamo by F. Stefani, A. Giesecke, T. Weier (pre-print)
    We discuss a solar dynamo model of Tayler–Spruit type whose Ω-effect is conventionally produced by a solar-like differential rotation but whose α-effect is assumed to be periodically modulated by planetary tidal forcing. This resonance-like effect has its rationale in the tendency of the current-driven Tayler instability to undergo intrinsic helicity oscillations which, in turn, can be synchronized by periodic tidal perturbations. Specifically, we focus on the 11.07-years alignment periodicity of the tidally dominant planets Venus, Earth, and Jupiter, whose persistent synchronization with the solar dynamo is briefly touched upon.
    A key point is that the α-effect is assumed to be modulated with no physical mechanism listed. The paper states that "a physically realistic synchronization mechanism based on these tides is still hardly conceivable" in the convection zone generally. There are ideas for tidal effects in the solar tachocline. Then there is the subject of this paper - current-driven, kink-type Tayler instabilities in their model of a "tidally synchronized dynamo of the Tayler-Spruit type, and its combination with a more conventional α - Ω dynamo".

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544
    Thanks; the alpha effect seems to me to be expected in a radial viscous flow in the convection zone as the flowing column resolves its velocity profile by rotation. The Coriolis effect of entering the next layer “up” at higher tangential rate is in addition to that. It seems to me that if you add a small tidal component along the tangent that increases the twisting in a very analogous way to accelerating a gyro rotor by forcing its gimbals. So having seen the nature of the argument, the tidal mechanism for that acceleration to break out onto the surface seems worth investigation by my betters. The observation of breakout at the lattitudes, rather than at the actual equator may be related to different spin directions, cyclones and anticyclones.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Thanks; the alpha effect seems to me to be expected in a radial viscous flow in the convection zone as the flowing column resolves its velocity profile by rotation. ...
    The alpha-effect due to rotation is twisting of the solar magnetic field from rotation plus "a stratification of density and/or turbulence intensity" to make it non-zero. IOW a rotating star with a convection zone is predicted to have a non-zero alpha-effect in the models we use for their dynamo.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The alpha-effect due to rotation is twisting of the solar magnetic field from rotation plus "a stratification of density and/or turbulence intensity" to make it non-zero. IOW a rotating star with a convection zone is predicted to have a non-zero alpha-effect in the models we use for their dynamo.
    does that mean the convection, density and thus buoyancy forces and resultant radial flows are insignificant when compared to the magnetic forces? Because surely the convection zone is where convection is the dominant route for heat transfer to the surface. I am guilty of appropriating the alpha effect in a mechanical way. I should have postulated another letter in a situation where alpha and omega are not enough! Of course I am not trying to ignore the magnetic forces caused by currents in the charged flows, but looking for the second order effects which might explain the cyclic nature of the spots.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    does that mean the convection, density and thus buoyancy forces and resultant radial flows are insignificant when compared to the magnetic forces? ....
    It means that the cause of the alpha effect is stratification of density or turbulence (so a convection zone) + rotation twisting the magnetic field as explained in the article.
    Magnetic field lines pass through a volume with changing plasma (turbulence or density changes). There are electric currents along the magnetic field lines. Changing electric current = magnetic fields = changes in the solar magnetic field.

    I would guess that "convection, density and thus buoyancy forces and resultant radial flows are insignificant when compared to the magnetic forces" is incorrect - the alpha effect looks like turbulence/density changes that are significant when compared to these "magnetic forces" (the magnetic field?).

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    It means that the cause of the alpha effect is stratification of density or turbulence (so a convection zone) + rotation twisting the magnetic field as explained in the article.
    Magnetic field lines pass through a volume with changing plasma (turbulence or density changes). There are electric currents along the magnetic field lines. Changing electric current = magnetic fields = changes in the solar magnetic field.

    I would guess that "convection, density and thus buoyancy forces and resultant radial flows are insignificant when compared to the magnetic forces" is incorrect - the alpha effect looks like turbulence/density changes that are significant when compared to these "magnetic forces" (the magnetic field?).
    Thank you for that. Now i feel I must ask if you are giving credence to the idea of tidal forces and their periodic changes linking causally to sun spot cycles? As a corollary, do you consider the changes in tangential forces are feasible?

    I note the density changes with radius affect buoyancy versus the local surrounding density. This assumes a counter current within a radial cell where cooler, denser plasma is returning inward radially. Given the size of the convection zone, heat flow between the outward and inward flows must be small when compared with the interface at the base of that zone. In addition some of the flow is meridonal toward the poles where Coriolis decelerations also happen even though the net rotation is also changing.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,652
    I'm sorry but from words alone I still cannot visualize the actions you are envisioning. Some sketches might help.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Thank you for that. Now i feel I must ask if you are giving credence to the idea of tidal forces and their periodic changes linking causally to sun spot cycles? ...
    I am telling you what is in the paper and clearly stated in the abstract. The paper shows that if the "11.07-years alignment periodicity of the tidally dominant planets Venus, Earth, and Jupiter" is applied to the alpha-effect using their model, what emerges are "dipolar fields, oscillating with a 22.14 years period or pulsating with an 11.07 years period, but also quadrupolar fields with corresponding periodicities". There is no "linking causally" in the paper or my posts.

    We can easily see a problem with the alignment causing the solar cycle. The alignment is precisely 11.07 years and gives a 11.07 year cycle . The solar cycle is an average of ~11 years. There are grand solar minimums with no sunspots suggesting cycles lasting several decades. There has to be at least something else going on. That something else could be a cause of the ~11 year cycle that is totally internal to the Sun.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544
    Ok I can see that correlation is not causation and the paper explores a correlation. I was probing to see if reality-check pepersonally sees any mechanism. The flows in a gas giant or plasma giant are hard to visualise when considering tides andCoriolis accelerations, let alone model in maths. Just as in our atmosphere there will be both periodicity plus chaotic variation and we are seeing how quite small changes influence the extremes of behaviour here. So to me it is reasonable that the periodic and complex forcing from planets will have causal effects worthy of investigation.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Ok I can see that correlation is not causation and the paper explores a correlation. I was probing to see if reality-check pepersonally sees any mechanism.
    The answer is yes - the mechanisms stated in the paper and that I have described briefly before.
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    The flows in a gas giant or plasma giant are hard to visualise when considering tides andCoriolis accelerations, let alone model in maths. Just as in our atmosphere there will be both periodicity plus chaotic variation and we are seeing how quite small changes influence the extremes of behaviour here. So to me it is reasonable that the periodic and complex forcing from planets will have causal effects worthy of investigation.
    The flows in a star including tides and the Coriolis accelerations are well understood and often modeled in astrophysics. Tides are too small to have any effect on flows (see the paper).

    Earth's atmosphere is not comparable to the Sun's body. For example, the Sun does not orbit a star like the Earth causing "periodicity" due to the orbit (a cause of ice ages). The Earth's magnetic field could be a counter-example for external causes for the solar cycle since it reverses with no known external causes. But we know that the Earth and Sun are very different and so do not assume that something happening on Earth happens in the Sun.

    Complexity in visualization does not mean that small changes influences extremes of behavior, which is not quite a solar cycle - a relatively "smooth" change in the solar magnetic field. Periodic forcing from planets has ben investigated for decades. That is why the 11.07-year alignment of Venus, Earth, and Jupiter figures in the paper. But there are problems with that being the cause of the solar cycle - the cycle is a average of ~11 years and the possible physical mechanisms have problems.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jul-03 at 09:13 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The answer is yes - the mechanisms stated in the paper and that I have described briefly before.

    The flows in a star including tides and the Coriolis accelerations are well understood and often modeled in astrophysics. Tides are too small to have any effect on flows (see the paper).

    Earth's atmosphere is not comparable to the Sun's body. For example, the Sun does not orbit a star like the Earth causing "periodicity" due to the orbit (a cause of ice ages). The Earth's magnetic field could be a counter-example for external causes for the solar cycle since it reverses with no known external causes. But we know that the Earth and Sun are very different and so do not assume that something happening on Earth happens in the Sun.

    Complexity in visualization does not mean that small changes influences extremes of behavior, which is not quite a solar cycle - a relatively "smooth" change in the solar magnetic field. Periodic forcing from planets has ben investigated for decades. That is why the 11.07-year alignment of Venus, Earth, and Jupiter figures in the paper. But there are problems with that being the cause of the solar cycle - the cycle is a average of ~11 years and the possible physical mechanisms have problems.
    My bold. I will second that. I have not seen the paper, but in the past few hours I have calculated estimates of the tidal distortion of the Sun by the planets. In proportion to the Sun's vast size it is vanishingly small compared with the corresponding proportions of Earth and its tides as raised by the Sun and the Moon. I would be flabbergasted if it has any effect on the convection flows that get snarled in the magnetic field and form sunspots.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,212
    The paper rules out tidal effects on Page 4 (PDF) because the tidal acceleration is tiny compared to other acceleration terms, presumably including flows in the convection zone. The more promising ideas are deep in the Sun in the tachocline region which is the transition region between the radiative and convective zones.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,652
    Upon reading past p. 4 I can see that they have not ruled out tidal effects in those deeper regions. I am guessing now that there may be electromagnetic structures that are stiff and more resistant to tidal deformation than is a simple fluid. As an analogy we can look at the motion of sea water where the gravitational gradient has a transverse component. The force is weak but is sustained for hours before turning. As I think I understand it, this results in a lateral flow relative to the bottom, because the underlying lithosphere resists being deformed. This can build up momentum that results in disproportionately high tides in places like the Bay of Fundy. Now I am not so quick to reject the possibility of tidal modulation of the magnetic cycle.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544
    Reading past papers on the sun modelling there is the issue of neutral buoyancy and thus instability which is a classical chaotic situation where tiny changes can cause large swings in the output. This effect is modelled within the spinning flow tubes which spiral their way out through the convective zone over many days, possibly tens of days, veering away from their starting lattitudes.
    There is therefore scope for the tiny fluctuations in the tiny tidal forces to modify the flows.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    ...There is therefore scope for the tiny fluctuations in the tiny tidal forces to modify the flows.
    As the paper states, the acceleration produced by tides is too many order of magnitudes small (~10 orders) so "a physically realistic synchronization mechanism based on these tides is still hardly conceivable." even in a best case scenario. That is astronomers who know about the dynamics of flows in the convection zone. They know if the flows are chaotic systems that could be driven by tiny fluctuations.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    As the paper states, the acceleration produced by tides is too many order of magnitudes small (~10 orders) so "a physically realistic synchronization mechanism based on these tides is still hardly conceivable." even in a best case scenario. That is astronomers who know about the dynamics of flows in the convection zone. They know if the flows are chaotic systems that could be driven by tiny fluctuations.
    Accepted. The variations in the tidal forces, being based on distance cubed could reduce that to just 9 orders. I don't know what effect the integration of the variation over a long period has on those orders. Could we integrate not over a solar revolution but over a year or so?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    ...Could we integrate not over a solar revolution but over a year or so?
    If you want to do the calculation, do so. However the 10 OOM is the tidal acceleration chased by the alignment of planets. When they go out of alignment, the tides obviously decrease. My guess is no significant effect.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,164
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    The barycentre spiral is quite complex if you consider all the planets
    On this side issue, in fact the barycentre spiral is fairly simple, with period about 179 years, as I demonstrate here.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544
    Given that the Barycentre itself does not drive the sunspots but the tidal calculation equivalent might have a small perturbation effect, I think the variation is a challenge in any model. By the way for me the "here" did not work but I have a Barycentre diagram as published by the NASA simulator.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,164
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    for me the "here" did not work but I have a Barycentre diagram as published by the NASA simulator.
    The link is to a powerpoint presentation. If you have powerpoint it should work, providing a fairly simple proof of the repetitive SSB pattern. Diagrams I have seen of the barycentre only seem complex when they fail to include the 179 year pattern that I have shown in these diagrams. I will upload it to youtube for ease of access.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    The link is to a powerpoint presentation. If you have powerpoint it should work, providing a fairly simple proof of the repetitive SSB pattern. Diagrams I have seen of the barycentre only seem complex when they fail to include the 179 year pattern that I have shown in these diagrams. I will upload it to youtube for ease of access.
    I got it now thanks, I like the pattern presentation but you think that is a simple pattern to model? By chance does your generator enable the cube of distance pattern too? (as in the tidal equation)?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,164
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I got it now thanks, I like the pattern presentation but you think that is a simple pattern to model? By chance does your generator enable the cube of distance pattern too? (as in the tidal equation)?
    The "generator" is the NASA JPL data entered into an excel spreadsheet with a new radial graph for each successive 179 year period. I have not looked at a cube of distance pattern.

    The very small movements of each arc of the flower shape can be readily seen to illustrate the strong simple stability of this periodicity within the structure of the solar system centre of mass, due to the appearance of whole fractions of 179 years close to the main planetary factors that produce the barycentre wave function. Sorry, this is off topic for sunspots so I will continue this in a different thread later.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •