For those interested in my hypothesis, this does
not relate to it. It relates to the COM hypothesis which has some correlation with my hypothesis but has no actual physics meaning as far as I can tell. I will not be continuing with this discussion as it is not the subject of the thread.
The main difference in effect between my hypothesis and the COM hypothesis is that it is not the actual conjunctions but the N-S movement of the planets that is important. Because the important planets orbits are inclined in a similar way to the Sun's axis, this is a subtle difference, except that only conjunctions near the position of maximum inclination are important, those near the nodes are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
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.
|
I suggest that for simplicity you start with a supposed perfect alignment of J-S-U-N and assume circular orbits and work forward in time. You will find that U-N align every 171.4 years. If you use a 178.9 year cycle,you will miss this conjnction by 7.5 years. If you keep doing that you add error to error and after 10 cycles the error is 75 years, which means that rather than having a U-N conjunction they are almost on opposite sides of the Sun. So quite clearly you cannot have a J-S-U-N conjunction when U and N are so far apart.
I repeat again what I said earlier. After one or two 179 year periods you have to use a 159 year period to keep U and N in step. Because of the 19.86 year J-S conjunction period both of these periods are good conjunctions of the 4 planets. This is all quite evident in the graph that you posted when you look at the double wiggles.
Also, if you follow that conjunctions of J-S-U-N through a 2300 year cycle period you will find that there is a long period in that cycle where there are no good 4 planet conjunctions at all.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Your post does not show a correlation between J-S and the sunspots. It shows a small number of points that you say are or might be in step. I already suggested that in between those small number of points the phase is in fact exactly opposite. Is that not clear. You cannot have an 11.08 year cycle remaining in step with either an 11.86 year cycle or a 19.86 year cycle. That is a simple mathematical fact.
However if you do a Fourier analysis of the Sunspot cycle you will find these components (well you will find components near 11.86 years and 9.93 years = 19.86 years /2). But you will find that the 11.08 year cycle is stronger than either.
Quote:
|
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?
|
If you go through just one of your supposed 179 year cycles, and count how many sunspot maxima you are predicting and compare to the actual number observed, you will see that the COM hypothesis does not say anything at all about the actual observed sunspot cycle. If you dispute this, then please show a graph or table with the peaks labelled and the years shows against the years of sunpot maxima or minima.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Well, it matters not how long the period is. If the COM ois an important concept then it would still work. But the COm would then be way way outside the Sun. The people that write on this think that the COM going outside the Sun or going retrograde is important. That conceot depends on a selection of bodies to include which has no indepedent physics meaning.
Quote:
|
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.
|
As I said. Count the number of peaks between these and show how they relate to the number of sunspoit cycle peaks.