Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
Ray, You seem to be saying here, if perihelion and aphelion of planets are functions of planetary position relative to the north-south axis of the sun, that we should be able to plot solar cycles against planetary perihelion, aphelion and node. In plotting solar system barycentre against planetary cycles, you are aware of the ~178.9 year Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune cycle. My concern with your vertical axis theory is that a simpler answer appears to result from the attached plot, which shows strongly repeating patterns in measured data for sunspot cycles against the horizontal barycentre position produced mainly by cycles of Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune. From this data I postulate that future and past sunspot cycles will match the pattern shown here.
|
This "cycle" of 179 years is not really a cycle. After a couple of 179 year cycles you have to insert a 159 year cycle to keep the Uranus-Neptune conjunction working. It has to average 171 years.
Also, you cannot in fact match the peaks and troughs in your barycentre motion with the Sunspot cycle. That is because the dominant cycles in the COM motion are 11.86 years for Jupiter's period and 19.86 years for the Jupiter-Saturn lap. The Sunspot cycle averages 11.08 years over a long period which means that it goes in and out of phase with the 11.86 year period of Jupiter about every 170 years.
Marking some extremes that agrees with the graph as being sunspot minima at ~170 year intervals is meaningless because half way between these those same dips are sunspot maxima. The COM hypothesis does gove some long term periods which appear to agree with climate cycles, but it certainly does not produce the 11.08 year sunspot cycle.
Also, if you think about the COM of the Sun and Galaxy, then the COM is way outside the Sun all the time and moves about by huge amounts as we orbit the galaxy. Is this incorporated in the COM model? Why not? The thing is that the COM idea does not actually provide a real mechanism as the Sun is in free fall. Only tidal forces (relating to changes in that rate of fall) actually do something physical to the Sun (namely stretch it).
The effects that I am pointing out are real effects according to standard physics. If they are not included then the wrong answer must result. Many people just assume that such effects must be negligable and never even calculate them to see. The thing is that the time^2 factor in s=(1/2)*a*t^2 causes a huge affect when t=6 or more years for the outer planets. That needs to be balanced with the forces being so tiny.