16-March-2008, 03:06 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 43
|
|
I’ve been out of town and away from my computer. Thank you all for your comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
This is a superb (I think new?) scientific finding. Congratulations!
|
Thank you, I think I’ve done it. And thank you for all of your input.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
The graphs of barycentric distances, etc. are nice, but there is one important thing missing -- the Maunder Minimum, when the 11-year cycle all but shut down and hardly any sunspots were seen at all. All these attempts to shoehorn sunspot numbers into planetary cycles come to grief when confronted with the observational fact of the Maunder Minimum.
|
I disagree. The Sun has been shown to have several longer cycles ranging from 1050 to 2289 years. There is no evidence that shows that the Maunder Minimum could not have been riding on the backs of one of these longer cycles.
I’ve taken a closer look at the sunspot minimums at cycle -8 (1655), cycle 8 (1833.11) and cycle 24 (2012.8) . As I noted before, cycle -8 and cycle 8 are 178.11 years apart. If I predict cycle 24 to be 2012.8, then cycle 8 and cycle 24 will be 178.9 years apart.
In order to arrive at an estimated minimum date for cycle 24 I compared the time between the angular momentum peaks to the time between the sunspot minimums.
I also compared the solar minimum dates to the minimum radius and angular momentum peaks.
|