Quote:
Originally Posted by orionjim
I am talking strictly about angular momentum and the conservation of it, not gravity. My analogy of the tides on the moon was pretty bad, since the tides are caused by gravity. I was trying to make a point there may be a possible cause.
|
Conservation of angular momentum, as I understand it, tells us nothing one way or the other about possible stresses on the Sun as it orbits the barycenter. Please enlighten us as to why you believe otherwise.
Quote:
If JimP does take the time to put Saturn into his charts and the R^2 number does go up then I will explain the mechanism I am thinking about. I personally think the R^2 will go up! If the R^2 number doesn’t go up then posting my idea would be a total waste of time.
My question to you (Hornblower) is if the R^2 does go up would it get your interest up?
|
Don't ask me, ask a statistician. I don't know diddlysquat about these statistical criteria.
Quote:
If the R^2 number doesn't go up I'll be standing with you.
Jim
|
If qualified statisticians conclude that a statistical correlation between sunspot counts and Jupiter's perihelion passages is too good to be a mere coincidence, then of course I would be interested in trying to identify a possible cause.
As I argued before, the period analyzed in the OP is too short to rule out a periodic solar max variation whose period is not exactly that of the Jupiter pattern, but is close enough to give a false positive for two or three cycles. If it holds up over 10 or 20 such cycles I would say, "Go for it." My question: Is there forensic evidence of the strength individual solar maximums and minimums in prior centuries that can be dated exactly?