Quote:
Originally Posted by tusenfem
Wow, not only can rtomes not show the first important part of his hypothesis (i.e. relativistic mass is being influenced twice as much by gravity than Newton would say) but now it is even shown that the phase of the "motions" and the sunspot phase shift relative to eachother.
Guess this put a nail to the coffin of how the sunspot period is caused.
|
Did you not read my reply?
Did you not read my very first post where I stated quite clearly:
Quote:
The cycles periods that I predicted did match the cycles periods found in the sun over a similar period of time. However there was one big difference between the two and that was the amplitudes calculated and observed. The amplitudes of cycles near 10.5 years was high but those far from that period were low, with a typical resonance response curve easily fitted to the ratio of observed to expected amplitudes.
Clearly this means that this proposal works only if the Sun has some natural resonance of 10.5 years and all of these forces are activating that resonance. Based on that further assumption, I could calculate sunspot numbers over several centuries with a correlation of r=0.66 from the planetary forces.
|
If you care to look at the cycles periods found in the two series you will see that I represented the true facts from the start.
There is no coffin to put a nail into.