Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
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.
|
I don’t understand this ‘insertion’ idea. You may be right Ray, but it looks to me like the 179 year pattern is permanent, a slowly shifting cosmic constant number, but there is also a longer sub-trend caused by the JSN interaction with Uranus. Maybe I haven’t looked at the data properly but I don’t see the 159 year pattern. It looks to me, including from the 1350 years of data you provided privately, that the 179 year pattern is permanent but there is also a longer periodic secondary cycle caused by the 171 year Uranus-Neptune cycle, which just make the secondary bumps (1505, 1610, 1650, 1690, 1790, 1830, 1972, 2010) which drift forward on average 8 years per cycle due to the difference with the main 179 year period.
Quote:
|
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.
|
So, are you saying the historic records of correlations between the Jupiter-Saturn cycle and the sunspots shown in the attachment to my post is just an artifact? ie that this Jupiter Saturn shape may appear in each 179 year pattern but will drift away from alignment to sunspot minima? How do you know the sunspot minima dates over longer period than the recorded dates since 1600?
Quote:
|
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 give some long term periods which appear to agree with climate cycles, but it certainly does not produce the 11.08 year sunspot cycle.
|
So what? The maxima are in periods when the sun is moving fastest, the minima I pointed to are when sun is at COM station. This data shows identical patterns in two barycentric cycles. Are you claiming there is data for future and past sunspot minima which would falsify my claim?
Quote:
|
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?
|
Surely you cannot incorporate the galaxy in short term cycles given that the Sun-galaxy COM would surely have phase measured in the millions of years rather than decades?
Quote:
|
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 negligible 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.
|
I am not saying you are wrong Ray, just that the 1714-1728 and 1886-1914 similarities I depicted at
http://www.bautforum.com/attachments...ulip190408.gif leapt out of the data to me, and I am just wondering if you can prove it is an artifact and not a causal factor.