# Thread: Jupiter drives the sunspots and here's how.

1. ## Jupiter drives the sunspots and here's how.

sun spots occur in a regular pattern of minima and maxima. They travel from left to right as seen from Earth, or Eastwards. The sun is spinning on its axis.

Here is one representation of 400 years of records, courtesy of WP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

Jupiter exerts the largest force on the sun.

The gravity force is given by Newton's equation G.M.m/R2
R here is the orbit radius.
G is 6.67 x 10 -11 m3/kg/s2
the mass of the sun is about 2 x 10 30 kg.

planets with m/R2 calculated. units kg/km2 x 10 7

M/R2 orbit days
Mercury 9.8 88
Venus 40 225
Earth 27 365
Mars 1.2 687
Jupiter 310 4333
Saturn 28 10759
Uranus 1 36685
Neptune <1 60189

The Jupiter force is about 4.2 x 10 23 Newtons
Force = acceleration x mass
So the Sun accelerates toward Jupiter all the time at a rate of 2.1 x 10-7 m/s2.
We also know that the centripetal force = wR'2
R' is the instantaneous orbit radius.
and the Sun's rate of rotation must be close to Jupiter's rate, which is 17x 10-9 rads/s
'
solving for R', the instantaneous centre of rotation due to Jupiter is 7.3 x 108 m from the sun centre.
Except that actually it is varying all the time.

Jupiter's orbit is eccentric ranging or changing by +- 75 million kilometres, about ten per cent!

The maximum and minimum values of the M/R2 term due to Jupiter's eccentricity is thus about +- 20%. Greatest at the perihelion, the closest approach to the sun.

Therefore due to Jupiter alone the orbit centre of the sun varies from just inside to just outside the sun radius R.

The jupiter perihelion occurred in the years (to one decimal point):
1703.2, 1714.9, 1726.7, 1738.6, 1750.5, 1762.3, 1774.2, 1786.0, 1797.9, 1809.8, 1821.6, 1833.5, 1845.3, 1857.2, 1869.1, 1880.9, 1892.8, 1904.6, 1916.5, 1928.4, 1940.2, 1952.1, 1963.9, 1975.8, 1987.6, 1999,5, 2011.4.
Sun spot minima occurred in the years:
1714, 1725, 1734, 1748, 1757, 1777, 1786, 1798, 1824, 1835, 1845, 1857, 1868, 1878 to 1881, 1901, 1914, 1925, 1936, 1945, 1955, 1966, 1972, 1988, 1998, 2008.

Counting from 1714 to 1999 there are 25 minima and 25 perihelions of Jupiter.

There are deviations from an exact match. There is a lesser effect from Saturn, Venus and the Earth. Saturn takes a long time coming into alignment with Jupiter every 19.8 years. Earth and Venus will line up within about a year each time.

The Saturn conjunction years are:
1707.6, 1727.4, 1767.1, 1787.0, 1806.9, 1826.7, 1846.6, 1866.4, 1886.3, 1906.1, 1926.0, 1945.9, 1965.7, 1985.6, 2005.4.

I venture to suggest that when Satrun is lined up there is a suppression of sunspot numbers and it periods where it is opposed, as in most of the 20th C, the sunspot numbers are higher.

The causal relationship: we now believe that the sun has a central core of very hot and dense plasma. Sometimes two protons combine to make a helium nucleus. Energy radiates outwards getting cooler until there is a change where the outer layer becomes opaque and convection starts at a transition called the tachocline.

The sun bathes the Earth in about 1.2 Kw/m2. So its total output is about 3.4 x 10 23 kW
or at its visible surface, (about 6 x 10 18 m2) about 55 MW/m2.

The core, a ball spinning on its axis once every 24 days approximately,

The sun's radius R is 7 x 10 8 metres. At the tachocline the radius is about 5 x 10 8 m.
Equatorial tangential speed there (radius times angular rate) is 1500 m/s.

If we view the sun from above its north pole in a fixed frame it is in orbit around a point close to its outer surface,which varies from about 0.5 R to about 1.5R.

When the orbit radius is 0.5 R, a point at the tachocline (0.7R) nearest the point of orbital rotation is moving anticlockwise at about 2 m/s.

When the orbit radius is 1.5R the same point has about 16m/s.

These are added to the 1500m/s due to the spin. A change of about 1%.

For a ball of hot dense plasma setting off to reach the surface, 1% is significant.

When the SOHO satellite VIRGO instrument found a 0.015% reduction in total sun output during a solar minimum it was a dramatic event because sun modellers had assumed the output was unwavering. The Solar Maximum mission has shown it can change by 0.1% over a few days or weeks.

At the tachocline, bubbles of plasma are heated by the radiant heat from the core and behave rather like thermals in our atmosphere. They become less dense and float radially away from the tachocline.

The density there is thought to be about 2 gm/cc ( twice water) and reducing to very little at the outside.

So the sun inside the tachocline is a third of the volume but nearly all the mass of the sun.

The pressure there is due to the column of fluid above, just like our atmosphere.
The distance is 2.1x 10 8 m so crudely there is a column mass of 2 x 10 11 kg
assuming a linear drop of density with altitude.

Using the same gravity equation the weight of this column per square metre is 56 x 10 14 Newtons.
The pressure is 56 x 10 14 Pascals or about 5.6 x 10 9 earth atmospheres.

It is thought these bubbles of heated plasma travel at a few km per second (from 1 to 6 km/s)
The average is thought to be 2 km/s.

Consider a “trial” bubble of radius 1 km, it would be about 8 Gigakg and like thermals we can imagine that cooler fluid rushes in to cut it off as a bubble as it rises from the tachocline.. This bubble then has a start velocity of 2000m/s radially. (according to sun experts).

If it is a polar bubble it has a fifth of a million km to go, so it will take perhaps 10 5 seconds; just more than one day.

However if it is an equatorial bubble it starts with a tangential velocity also of about 1500m/s so it starts off at an angle with a velocity of about 2.5 km/s. The angle is arctan (1.5/2) to the radial, about 37 degrees.

It is travelling in a spiral out through downward spiralling cooler fluid.

To explain Coriolis acceleration, as the bubble travels radially, it has to be accelerated to the higher speed, eastwards.

Using Coriolis to calculate this the acceleration is 2 x dr/dt x w.

dr/dt is 2000 m/s w is 3 x 10 -6 rad/s thus acceleration is 12 10-3 m/s2,

using the 10 5 second time the distance travelled tangentially is:

1500 x 10 5 + ½ x 12 x 10 -3 x 10 10 = (15 + 6) x 10 7 m

In this result the first term is due to initial velocity and the second due to coriolis effect. Note the start velocity is important.

Clearly it will expand many times in its journey because of the drop in pressure, this will cause cooling but it will stay hotter than the falling fluid surrounding it. If the start pressure is so enormous the size near the surface will be gigantic. If the “trial” bubble near the surface has expanded say a thousand million times, its diameter is now 2000 km and if it spreads out to a layer 100 km thick, it becomes a patch 10 thousand km across. These figures are just to help visualise the process. There is room, the equatorial circumference is 4,300,000 km.
For interest, at 55MW/m2 our trial bubble now delivers something like 5 x 10 15 Watts for its short life before cooling and sinking. The turnover of granules on the sun (the bubble is now a granule ) is said to be around 1000 seconds. If that applies to our trial bubble the heat content is 5 x 10 18 Joules.

That is 6 x 10 8 Joules per kg.

The general view is that the cooled outside layers flow from equator to pole. If they do there must be increased rotation there as the angular momentum of the reducing radius flow will speed it up as it then sinks near the poles. I think there must be substantial inward, spinning flow at all lattitudes due to gravity.

The picture then is of rising bubbles of hot plasma through an eastward rushing cooler down-draft.

The equatorial radial flows take a longer path and see greater flows, so have more chance to lose heat. This suggests that the stable bubble size is larger at the equator, small bubbles being broken up in the cooler downdraft.

If for any reason the heat flow is more efficient, even a little more, the surface radiation would increase and the temperature of the tachocline would decrease. And vice versa.

One way to influence the convection efficiency is to change the tangential start velocity of the bubbles, as happens to a small degree due to orbit shift.

Vortices: Cooler flows at all mid lattitudes will spin up as they fall to maintain their angular momentum and becoming denser under increasing pressure will tend to spin at smaller radius, faster. This encourages another meta stable form, the vortex. A vortex is a central zone of high angular rate low pressure fluid supporting by its centrifugal force a higher pressure exterior. Vortex flow is well known on Earth in whirlpools and tornados. If the vortex reaches a hotter zone it will tend to suck hot material in at the base and a different flow model can emerge with hot high angular rate fluid rising and cooler denser slower moving fluid falling around it. (Like a thunder cloud)

In a free vortex the local velocity is related to the local pressure by Bernoulli's equation.
P + ½ ro .v2 + ro.g.h = K,
ro is the density

At the assumed tachocline density of 56 10 14 Pascals, density 2000 kg/m3,

a free surface implies a tangential velocity of about 2.5 10 6 m/s. The radius depends on the average circulation around that point, that is the angular momentum of the vortex.

This “atmosphere” of relatively low energy protons and electrons is nearly a perfect gas so there is no viscosity and such vorticity is possible and could continue indefinitely.

The electromagnetic and inertial effects tie such vorticity into knots.

Such a vortex would separate like a centrifuge, separating the heavier protons from the lighter electrons and this would introduce huge currents of electrons spinning up through the centre of the vortex, pushed upwards by the hot high pressures fluids entering at the base.

The upward moving spinning electron current would generate a solenoidal magnetic field with a pole at the surface. Every such vortex would produce a similar pole with a diffused annular opposite pole around it in the proton flow.

If the protons spread out at the surface while they cool this would create a huge annular anode or positively charges protons through which the electrons would be accelerated, to form a corona discharge.

Each vortex would also repel its similar neighbours creating a chaotic nest of snakes.

Transition from bubble flow to vortex flow could be the point at which inertial forces play a part.

If there is a strong vortex flow from inner to outer there is the gyroscopic force. A spinning mass moving radially and tangentially is being forced to precess by the rotation of the sun's spin and by its rotation around the orbit centre. This effect is strongest at the equator.

Any spinning mass will move at right angles to the applied forced precession couple. This effect is also altered by the orbit radius to the order of one per cent.

While the transport of heat uses a short cycle time the heat of the core will not change quickly. A period of high heat flow will start to cool the tachocline and possibly to move its radius but the cooling will have a high inertia so (presumably) it takes years to cool to the point where the heat flow regime starts to collapse to a less efficient one. This is an inherent cycle within the sun.

However if the the flow is encouraged or discouraged by external forces, then a long period of high output, (sunspot active) would cause a deeper than usual cooling of the tachocline and a period of lower output would follow. This is exactly the pattern of a small forcing frequency on a cyclic system.

Hypothesis:

There is a natural cycle of heat output within the sun where periods of slightly higher output cause a cooling of the tachocline over a period of years, (about five to six years) which leads to a reduction of output and this causes a rise in temperature of the tachocline during a further five years. The actual heat transfer is most effective by vortices, and least effective by convective bubbles. There is a small forcing frequency caused by the variation of the orbital radius of the sun, due to Jupiter, which affects the momentum of convective flow and the forced precession of vortex flow.

When the Saturn Jupiter conjunctions coincide with the perihelion, there is a decrease in sunspot activity and a reduced output of the sun leading to cool periods on Earth.

The mechanism is that increased orbital radius disrupts the heat transfer flows by coriolis, gyroscopic and angular momentum effects on the radial mass transfer cycle. These cyclic effects are of the order of one percent of the same effects due to the sun's own spin.

2. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
4,544
And the magnetic fields? And their reversals? How do they fit in?

Regards, John M.

3. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,207
Originally Posted by profloater
sun spots occur in a regular pattern of minima and maxima. They travel from left to right as seen from Earth, or Eastwards. The sun is spinning on its axis.

Here is one representation of 400 years of records, courtesy of WP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

Jupiter exerts the largest force on the sun.

The gravity force is given by Newton's equation G.M.m/R2
R here is the orbit radius.
G is 6.67 x 10 -11 m3/kg/s2
the mass of the sun is about 2 x 10 30 kg.
And yet, you totally ignore the tidal effect of the planets. The tidal effect is calculated using (using m/r3).

Originally Posted by profloater
planets with m/R2 calculated. units kg/km2 x 10 7

M/R2 orbit days
Mercury 9.8 88
Venus 40 225
Earth 27 365
Mars 1.2 687
Jupiter 310 4333
Saturn 28 10759
Uranus 1 36685
Neptune <1 60189
Calculating the tidal force, with the Earth's effect on the Sun equal to 1, you get the following:

Mercury 1.90 perihelion .54 aphelion
Venus 2.15
Earth 1
Mars .041 perihelion .023 aphelion
Jupiter 2.26
Saturn .11

The rest of the planets, and Pluto, are even less than Mars at perihelion, so I'll ignore them.

Notice that Venus has almost as much tidal force on the Sun as Jupiter, and Mercury, at perihelion, isn't that far behind. Of course, at aphelion, it's still half that of Earth.

Originally Posted by profloater
The Jupiter force is about 4.2 x 10 23 Newtons
Force = acceleration x mass
So the Sun accelerates toward Jupiter all the time at a rate of 2.1 x 10-7 m/s2.
We also know that the centripetal force = wR'2
R' is the instantaneous orbit radius.
and the Sun's rate of rotation must be close to Jupiter's rate, which is 17x 10-9 rads/s
'
solving for R', the instantaneous centre of rotation due to Jupiter is 7.3 x 108 m from the sun centre.
Except that actually it is varying all the time.

Jupiter's orbit is eccentric ranging or changing by +- 75 million kilometres, about ten per cent!
Jupiter's orbit is not that eccentric. It's eccentricity is only .0488. Mercury's eccentricity is .205. Mercury's difference between perihelion and aphelion is 24 million km. If you take 58 million km as it's average distance, that 24 million km between perihelion and aphelion is a 40% difference, four times the difference of Jupiter.

That change in Mercury's tidal force is a bit over 250%. Quite a bit more than that 20% for the gravitational attraction for Jupiter.

Originally Posted by profloater
The maximum and minimum values of the M/R2 term due to Jupiter's eccentricity is thus about +- 20%. Greatest at the perihelion, the closest approach to the sun.
The difference in Mercury's tidal force is +-70%, three and one half times Jupiter's difference. While Mercury's tidal effects are not quite as strong as Jupiter's, that difference will cause all sorts of differential pulls in the Suns interior.

Originally Posted by profloater
The jupiter perihelion occurred in the years (to one decimal point):
1703.2, 1714.9, 1726.7, 1738.6, 1750.5, 1762.3, 1774.2, 1786.0, 1797.9, 1809.8, 1821.6, 1833.5, 1845.3, 1857.2, 1869.1, 1880.9, 1892.8, 1904.6, 1916.5, 1928.4, 1940.2, 1952.1, 1963.9, 1975.8, 1987.6, 1999,5, 2011.4.
Sun spot minima occurred in the years:
1714, 1725, 1734, 1748, 1757, 1777, 1786, 1798, 1824, 1835, 1845, 1857, 1868, 1878 to 1881, 1901, 1914, 1925, 1936, 1945, 1955, 1966, 1972, 1988, 1998, 2008.

Counting from 1714 to 1999 there are 25 minima and 25 perihelions of Jupiter.
Which, seems to me, is just a coincidence as Jupiter goes around the sun in the same amount of time as 1/2 the sunspot cycle. Exactly how does Jupiter account for the change in the sun's magnetic field?

Originally Posted by profloater
There are deviations from an exact match. There is a lesser effect from Saturn, Venus and the Earth. Saturn takes a long time coming into alignment with Jupiter every 19.8 years. Earth and Venus will line up within about a year each time.

The Saturn conjunction years are:
1707.6, 1727.4, 1767.1, 1787.0, 1806.9, 1826.7, 1846.6, 1866.4, 1886.3, 1906.1, 1926.0, 1945.9, 1965.7, 1985.6, 2005.4.

I venture to suggest that when Satrun is lined up there is a suppression of sunspot numbers and it periods where it is opposed, as in most of the 20th C, the sunspot numbers are higher.
And I would say that Saturn doesn't even count. If you add the tidal effects of Jupiter and Saturn, you get a total of 2.37. Even if they are opposite, the effect will still add. For Mercury and Venus, at Mercury's perihelion, the effect is 4.05 and even at Mercury's aphelion, the effect is 2.69, more than the Jupiter-Saturn effect.

Originally Posted by profloater
The causal relationship: we now believe that the sun has a central core of very hot and dense plasma. Sometimes two protons combine to make a helium nucleus.
You know, if you are going to propose a mechanism for sunspot minimums, it would help your credibility if you could provide the actual method of changing hydrogen into helium in stars with the mass of the sun.

Originally Posted by profloater
Energy radiates outwards getting cooler until there is a change where the outer layer becomes opaque and convection starts at a transition called the tachocline.

snip...

However if the the flow is encouraged or discouraged by external forces, then a long period of high output, (sunspot active) would cause a deeper than usual cooling of the tachocline and a period of lower output would follow. This is exactly the pattern of a small forcing frequency on a cyclic system.

Hypothesis:

There is a natural cycle of heat output within the sun where periods of slightly higher output cause a cooling of the tachocline over a period of years, (about five to six years) which leads to a reduction of output and this causes a rise in temperature of the tachocline during a further five years. The actual heat transfer is most effective by vortices, and least effective by convective bubbles. There is a small forcing frequency caused by the variation of the orbital radius of the sun, due to Jupiter, which affects the momentum of convective flow and the forced precession of vortex flow.

When the Saturn Jupiter conjunctions coincide with the perihelion, there is a decrease in sunspot activity and a reduced output of the sun leading to cool periods on Earth.

The mechanism is that increased orbital radius disrupts the heat transfer flows by coriolis, gyroscopic and angular momentum effects on the radial mass transfer cycle. These cyclic effects are of the order of one percent of the same effects due to the sun's own spin.
And I would say your Saturn-Jupiter conjunctions have nothing to do with it. Why do you not figure in the Mercury-Venus conjunctions at Mercury's perihelions? After all, these have 150% of the tidal force strength of Saturn-Jupiter conjunctions? Since the Mercury-Venus tidal configurations happen approximately twice a year (once on the same side, once on opposite sides) there should be a greater minimum twice each year, right?

4. The jupiter perihelion occurred in the years (to one decimal point):
1703.2, 1714.9, 1726.7, 1738.6, 1750.5, 1762.3, 1774.2, 1786.0, 1797.9, 1809.8, 1821.6, 1833.5, 1845.3, 1857.2, 1869.1, 1880.9, 1892.8, 1904.6, 1916.5, 1928.4, 1940.2, 1952.1, 1963.9, 1975.8, 1987.6, 1999,5, 2011.4.
Sun spot minima occurred in the years:
1714, 1725, 1734, 1748, 1757, 1777, 1786, 1798, 1824, 1835, 1845, 1857, 1868, 1878 to 1881, 1901, 1914, 1925, 1936, 1945, 1955, 1966, 1972, 1988, 1998, 2008.
Correlation does not imply causality.
The sun bathes the Earth in about 1.2 Kw/m2. So its total output is about 3.4 x 10 23 kW
or at its visible surface, (about 6 x 10 18 m2) about 55 MW/m2.
The solar constant, the total radiative power that falls normally on a unit area just outside Earth's atmosphere is about 1370 W/m^2 ±1.5%. We can calculate the total luminosity of the sun by multiplying the flux at Earth by the surface area of the sphere out to Earth's orbit.
L = 4π(1.5*10^11)^2 * 1370 = 3.9 * 10^26 W
The surface flux of the sun is equivalent to the luminosity/surface area of the sun, about ~6.4 * 10^7 W/m^2

Regardless, Sun spots occur because of the magnetic dynamo of the sun, the magnetic field, and the differential rotation of the sun. What you have written here was essentially a waste of your time. The methods behind sunspots are quite well understood as it is. I'm not sure why you've come up with this. Do you completely deny the existence of this effect?

5. And yet, you totally ignore the tidal effect of the planets. The tidal effect is calculated using (using m/r3).
Greetings Tensor, there is a double irony here because when I started my barycentre thread it was tidal forces I had in mind and I had a section in my original draft but it was too long and was rejected so I cut it. Tidal forces also act and I think Jupiter will still dominate for the eccentricity of Jupiter is very significant.

6. You know, if you are going to propose a mechanism for sunspot minimums, it would help your credibility if you could provide the actual method of changing hydrogen into helium in stars with the mass of the sun.
I think not. However I admit it is possible that the core behaviour changes. The nuclear physics would be beyond me. I think it is the heat transfer mechanism from tachocline to surface that is vulnerable to these subtle effects and even if the core does have a cycle, the effects on the bubble flow and vortex flow are still there. And I feel I du understand inertial forces better than I do the interactions of protons.

7. Originally Posted by profloater
Greetings Tensor, there is a double irony here because when I started my barycentre thread it was tidal forces I had in mind and I had a section in my original draft but it was too long and was rejected so I cut it. Tidal forces also act and I think Jupiter will still dominate for the eccentricity of Jupiter is very significant.
Bold is mine.
Did you read Tensor's post? Specifically:
Jupiter's orbit is not that eccentric. It's eccentricity is only .0488. Mercury's eccentricity is .205. Mercury's difference between perihelion and aphelion is 24 million km. If you take 58 million km as it's average distance, that 24 million km between perihelion and aphelion is a 40% difference, four times the difference of Jupiter.

That change in Mercury's tidal force is a bit over 250%. Quite a bit more than that 20% for the gravitational attraction for Jupiter.

8. Regardless, Sun spots occur because of the magnetic dynamo of the sun, the magnetic field, and the differential rotation of the sun. What you have written here was essentially a waste of your time. The methods behind sunspots are quite well understood as it is. I'm not sure why you've come up with this. Do you completely deny the existence of this effect?
If that is the case why is the correlation between the parihelion of Jupiter and the sunspot cycle not mainstream? I suggest the magnetic dynamo is intimately linked with the inertial effects due to spin of the sun, you cannot pull them apart and the root power is the heat transfer mechanism from core to surface.

9. Regarding Mercury, I am sure the tidal effect is stronger but I have to face the correlation between sun spot minima and the jupiter perihelion (JP). Mercury and its tidal forces may well be part of the explanation why the exact minimum often is displaced from the JP. I would like to compute the historical vector for the gravity terms and the tidal terms, although these are related. The tidal equation comes from expanding the gravity equation as a series.

10. The solar constant, the total radiative power that falls normally on a unit area just outside Earth's atmosphere is about 1370 W/m^2 ±1.5%. We can calculate the total luminosity of the sun by multiplying the flux at Earth by the surface area of the sphere out to Earth's orbit.
L = 4π(1.5*10^11)^2 * 1370 = 3.9 * 10^26 W
The surface flux of the sun is equivalent to the luminosity/surface area of the sun, about ~6.4 * 10^7 W/m^2
Thank you for this correction I worked from 1.2KW in the same way, happy to be corrected.

11. Originally Posted by profloater
If that is the case why is the correlation between the parihelion of Jupiter and the sunspot cycle not mainstream?
You should be very weary about reading too much in to any correlation. Correlations do not imply causality. Such statistical relationships are very very common.

12. I'm sceptical, the Sun is very big and very energetic, and its internal processes would take some shifting, but two questions that I would ask if reviewing your theory:

Have you looked at a period of 9 years and 340 days (half the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn - "spring tides")?

If you do find a persuasive correlation of any kind, will you consider the (implausible) possibility that the causality is reversed, that the orbits of planets, over a few billion years, are affected by a periodicity of the internal dynamics of the Sun?

13. profloater, please use the "reply with quote" button if you are going to quote text from others in your replies. That makes it a lot easier to see whom you are replying to, as that will give a "Originally posted by XYZ" and a link to the post in the quote box.

14. Originally Posted by profloater
If that is the case why is the correlation between the parihelion of Jupiter and the sunspot cycle not mainstream? I suggest the magnetic dynamo is intimately linked with the inertial effects due to spin of the sun, you cannot pull them apart and the root power is the heat transfer mechanism from core to surface.

I think that the paper by Condon & Schmidt [1975] would be of interest to you. It is freely available from ADS, either click pdf or gif file. However, their abstract is not promising:

Originally Posted by C&S 1975
There is an empirical function of the heights of tides on the sun produced by Venus, earth, and Jupiter whose period is nearly equal to that of the 11-yr sunspot cycle (Wood, 1972). This period match has been used in suggestions that planetary tides cause sunspots and, indirectly, terrestrial climate changes and earthquakes. We derive the period of the tidal function in terms of the planetary orbital periods and show that it is artificially lengthened by aliasing. Furthermore, there exists a class of functions whose measure in frequency space is so great that, in the absence of a physical justification for preferring one member, no statistically significant period match can possibly be made with current sunspot data.

15. Originally Posted by tusenfem

I think that the paper by Condon & Schmidt [1975] would be of interest to you. It is freely available from ADS, either click pdf or gif file. However, their abstract is not promising:
I am reading and digesting this paper thanks. I note that while tides are specifically addressed, inertial forces are not, (unless I missed that at first read). I also note that the periods are discussed as not equal to sunspot periodicity which is true. However over 25 cycles they are the same and it is clear that the forcing effect of jupiter is modified by the other planets, so the exact period of sunspot minima would be expected to shift within each jupiter cycle. From this paper is the mainstream view that sunspots are NOT related in any way to planet orbits or that the effect is "only" tidal? Is there any mainstream paper addressing the inertial issues I have raised in relation to heat conduction in the outer sun?

16. Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?
Authors:
Wilson, I. R. G.; Carter, B. D.; Waite, I. A.
Affiliation:
AA(Education Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia irgeo@oz.com.au), AB(Centre for Astronomy, Solar Radiation and Climate, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia), AC(Centre for Astronomy, Solar Radiation and Climate, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia)
Publication:
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp. 85-93. (PASA Homepage)
Publication Date:
00/2008
Origin:
PASA
Keywords:
sun: activity, sun: sunspots, sun: rotation, stars: planetary systems,
DOI:
10.1071/AS06018
Bibliographic Code:
2008PASA...25...85W
Abstract
We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun's equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System. We propose that this synchronization is indicative of a spin-orbit coupling mechanism operating between the Jovian planets and the Sun. However, we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling. Some researchers have proposed that it is the period of the meridional flow in the convective zone of the Sun that controls both the duration and strength of the Solar cycle. We postulate that the overall period of the meridional flow is set by the level of disruption to the flow that is caused by changes in Sun's equatorial rotation speed. Based on our claim that changes in the Sun's equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun's orbital motion about the barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun's meridional flow is set by a Synodic resonance between the flow period (~22.3 yr), the overall 178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the 19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.
I think this is what I was saying although not quite.

17. Originally Posted by John Mendenhall
And the magnetic fields? And their reversals? How do they fit in?

Regards, John M.
Greetings John, I do not think the fields from jupiter reach the sun but there is intimate coupling between "mechanical" effects of inertia on masses in the sun conductive outer and the fact that all the masses are charged. I have seen many reference to the dynamos without explanation of the mechanisms. I wonder if you have a comment on my suggestion that vorticity centrifuges electrons from protons?

18. Originally Posted by Jamotron
You should be very weary about reading too much in to any correlation. Correlations do not imply causality. Such statistical relationships are very very common.
I am trying to suggest an exact causal mechanism in the disruption of heat flow by inertial effects.

19. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
963
Originally Posted by profloater
Greetings John, I do not think the fields from jupiter reach the sun but there is intimate coupling between "mechanical" effects of inertia on masses in the sun conductive outer and the fact that all the masses are charged. I have seen many reference to the dynamos without explanation of the mechanisms. I wonder if you have a comment on my suggestion that vorticity centrifuges electrons from protons?
I'm almost positive he was asking about how you thought the sun's magnetic fields fit in to all this (especially in regard with the behavior of sunspots).

20. Originally Posted by agingjb
I'm sceptical, the Sun is very big and very energetic, and its internal processes would take some shifting, but two questions that I would ask if reviewing your theory:

Have you looked at a period of 9 years and 340 days (half the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn - "spring tides")?

If you do find a persuasive correlation of any kind, will you consider the (implausible) possibility that the causality is reversed, that the orbits of planets, over a few billion years, are affected by a periodicity of the internal dynamics of the Sun?
You would expect the sun to be a constant but the sun spots are the evidence from which I began. I am impressed by the same number of cycles over 25 cycles despite the local deviations. The tie with jupiter perihelion is surely too good to be a near coincidence, and I have suggested the 1% inertial force change is enough to affect the heat conduction, the tidal effect is synchronised.

21. Originally Posted by Hungry4info
I'm almost positive he was asking about how you thought the sun's magnetic fields fit in to all this (especially in regard with the behavior of sunspots).
Yes the sun's magnetic fields are I presume linked to huge electron and proton flows themselves generated by the heat flow. I suggest the bubble flow becomes or is a radial vortex and this causes an electron flow up the centre, which generates a solenoidal magnetic field, and many such solenoids will mutually repel. It may be the most provocative part of my hypothesis.

22. Would an analogous effect be discernible in comparable systems - in particular would the internal dynamics of Jupiter be expected, according to this theory, show a correlation with the Io-Europa-Ganymede orbital synchronies?

23. Originally Posted by Tensor

Jupiter's orbit is not that eccentric. It's eccentricity is only .0488.
Its orbit is about 10% greater at perihelion than average, and so its gravity effect is 20% greater and it's massive, and it seems to rotate at the right rate to force a natural sun thermal cycle. And the correlation is good over 25 cycles.

24. Originally Posted by Tensor
Calculating the tidal force, with the Earth's effect on the Sun equal to 1, you get the following:

Mercury 1.90 perihelion .54 aphelion
Venus 2.15
Earth 1
Mars .041 perihelion .023 aphelion
Jupiter 2.26
Saturn .11
But you left out the Jupiter figures at perihelion will be about 30% more so it is still the biggest. I agree that the other planets have an effect, that is my point, it's not just jupiter, but jupiter sets the basic rhythm and the planets syncopate

25. Originally Posted by agingjb
Would an analogous effect be discernible in comparable systems - in particular would the internal dynamics of Jupiter be expected, according to this theory, show a correlation with the Io-Europa-Ganymede orbital synchronies?
Sorry, I do not know enough about the periods and eccentricities involved. But if I get the data I will have a look.

26. Originally Posted by profloater
Yes the sun's magnetic fields are I presume linked to huge electron and proton flows themselves generated by the heat flow. I suggest the bubble flow becomes or is a radial vortex and this causes an electron flow up the centre, which generates a solenoidal magnetic field, and many such solenoids will mutually repel. It may be the most provocative part of my hypothesis.
I think you might need to brush up on your dynamo theory, this is not even wrong.

27. Originally Posted by tusenfem
I think you might need to brush up on your dynamo theory, this is not even wrong.
I think dynamo might be a rather loose term in relation to the sun. There are radial flows (there must be to conduct the heat) and there are electrical currents and magnetic fields. For a dynamo you force conductors through magnetic fields, well the radial flow does that and of course it is complex. My point is that the local dynamo is an effect, which is driven and the dominant cause is the sun's spin and radial flow. That is the horse which pulls the magnetic cart. Taken globally we could put a number on the radial flow and the pressure forces and angular momentum. A lot of the work being done by the heat flow is converted to magnetic fields and currents but they will end up as heat again. I know the idea of a vortex centrifuge is rather crude but "not even wrong" does not help me to argue about it. Are you saying there is no vorticity or that protons and electrons in fluid state can not be treated as masses?

28. Originally Posted by Tensor

Calculating the tidal force, with the Earth's effect on the Sun equal to 1, you get the following:

Mercury 1.90 perihelion .54 aphelion
Venus 2.15
Earth 1
Mars .041 perihelion .023 aphelion
Jupiter 2.26
Saturn .11

The rest of the planets, and Pluto, are even less than Mars at perihelion, so I'll ignore them.

Notice that Venus has almost as much tidal force on the Sun as Jupiter, and Mercury, at perihelion, isn't that far behind. Of course, at aphelion, it's still half that of Earth.

Jupiter's orbit is not that eccentric. It's eccentricity is only .0488. Mercury's eccentricity is .205. Mercury's difference between perihelion and aphelion is 24 million km. If you take 58 million km as it's average distance, that 24 million km between perihelion and aphelion is a 40% difference, four times the difference of Jupiter.

That change in Mercury's tidal force is a bit over 250%. Quite a bit more than that 20% for the gravitational attraction for Jupiter.
Regarding the tidal forces, The actual force is a derivative of the gravity force and is smaller by D/R where D is the sun diameter and R the orbit radius, so whereas the % changes in Mercury as a tidal driver are larger, the actual forces are much smaller. The inertial forces due to Sun's spin are huge by comparison and my hypothesis is that changing them by 1% by the changing orbit radius is the disruptive effect which sets up or forces the sunspot cycle. Jupiter is by an order of mag. the largest driver when you consider its eccentricity.

29. Originally Posted by tusenfem
I think you might need to brush up on your dynamo theory, this is not even wrong.

A bubblelike coronal mass ejection flux rope in the solar wind
Authors:
Crooker, N. U.; Gosling, J. T.; Smith, E. J.; Russell, C. T.
Affiliation:
AA(California, University, Los Angeles), AB(Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM), AC(JPL, Pasadena, CA), AD(California, University, Los Angeles)
Publication:
IN: Physics of magnetic flux ropes (A92-31201 12-75). Washington, DC, American Geophysical Union, 1990, p. 365-371. Research supported by DOE.
Publication Date:
00/1990
Category:
Solar Physics
Origin:
STI
NASA/STI Keywords:
MAGNETIC CLOUDS, MAGNETIC FLUX, SOLAR CORONA, SOLAR MAGNETIC FIELD, SOLAR WIND, STELLAR MASS EJECTION, BUBBLES, INTERNATIONAL SUN EARTH EXPLORERS, MAGNETIC SIGNATURES, SOLAR ELECTRONS, SOLAR PHYSICS, SOLAR PROTONS
Bibliographic Code:
1990GMS....58..365C
Abstract
A resolution to the question of whether coronal mass ejections are loops or bubbles is proposed and applied to the geometrical analysis of a solar wind event detected at 1 AU by ISEE 1 and 3. The discontinuity orientations, the size determined by time of passage, and the magnetic cloud signature are fit into the topology of a flux rope loop distorted by expansion into a thick rope with comparable dimensions in both the ecliptic and meridional planes. The looped rope fills a bubblelike cavity, thus preserving both types of proposed coronal mass ejection geometries. Other interesting features of the data include an apparent separation by the rope core of bidirectionally streaming protons in the leading section from electrons in the trailing section, possible vortical flow within the magnetic cloud, and a well-defined filamentary structure behind the shock. My bold I think this is enough for me to pursue the idea of vorticity and a feeling that vorticity is the key parameter sensitive to rotation.

30. From post #16
Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?
Authors:
Wilson, I. R. G.; Carter, B. D.; Waite, I. A.
Affiliation:
AA(Education Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia irgeo@oz.com.au), AB(Centre for Astronomy, Solar Radiation and Climate, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia), AC(Centre for Astronomy, Solar Radiation and Climate, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia)
Publication:
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp. 85-93. (PASA Homepage)
Publication Date:
00/2008
Origin:
PASA
Keywords:
sun: activity, sun: sunspots, sun: rotation, stars: planetary systems,
DOI:
10.1071/AS06018
Bibliographic Code:
2008PASA...25...85W
Abstract
We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun's equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System. We propose that this synchronization is indicative of a spin-orbit coupling mechanism operating between the Jovian planets and the Sun. However, we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling. Some researchers have proposed that it is the period of the meridional flow in the convective zone of the Sun that controls both the duration and strength of the Solar cycle. We postulate that the overall period of the meridional flow is set by the level of disruption to the flow that is caused by changes in Sun's equatorial rotation speed. Based on our claim that changes in the Sun's equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun's orbital motion about the barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun's meridional flow is set by a Synodic resonance between the flow period (~22.3 yr), the overall 178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the 19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.
My bold. Here it appears that the authors have contemplated the same sort of idea that profloater is advocating, but they acknowledge that they cannot see a physical cause. That is consistent with my own vector analysis, as described in the other thread, from which I conclude that bodily moving the sun around the barycenter by means of planetary gravity will not alter its spin rate. I will not clutter up this thread with reprints of my previous posts, but will provide a link for reference.

Scroll down to posts 10, 19, 22, 29, 41, 44, 48, 49.

I remain confident that only the small tidal actions will be significant. Whether it is a large overall force moving the Sun in a large orbit or a smaller overall force moving it in a smaller orbit, only the gradient across the extent of the Sun should be a factor. I would look at the spring tide/neap tide pattern from Venus and Jupiter for starters, with smaller components from the other planets as described in my previous posts linked above.

Questions for profloater:

1. Can you tell me, in appropriate mathematical detail, what you think I am missing, if anything?

2. Can you give an explicit definition, in appropriate mathematical detail, of whatever you mean by "inertial force"?

Let me add that the sunspot cycle over the last 250 years is not even close to staying in sync with Jupiter's orbital period. Its average period of about 11.05 years is about 9 months shorter than Jupiter's period, which will get it half a cycle out after just a few cycles.

#### Posting Permissions

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