So the body of work Nasa did for Apollo still exists, and it was important work. How would it be an unsafe area for a scientist if Nasa did all that important work for Apollo?

Can you point me towards the work that Nasa did, surely it can't have been forgotten?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

If I told a physicist that a vertically moving photon was accelerated by gravity they would tell me to go back to school.

Its momentum is affected as is its frequency but the term accelerated is not used. Even in the case of a horizontal photons, I had a world expert in GR object to my use of accelerated for the bending of light. I said that the vector of its velocity was altered and that is acceleration. He didn't like it being called acceleration. So I said to him to tell me what to call that, but it was what happened whatever you called it.
Well I just look at this as the components in the three spatial directions. We have to keep track of what happens in 3D. But what happens is slightly different at different points in the Sun. In addition to the normal tidal forces there is this GR 2x (or 5/3x) effect on the relativistic content. Because of very frequent interaction with matter, the photon momentum and matter momentum are thoroughly mixed. So we can treat them as a single fluid as far as momentum per unit mass goes. Yes, that is acceleration for sure, but during the workings we have to use acceptable GR language. The fact that this case has never actually been described before means that we have to look for a way to make it very clear. But don't forget the vertical photons which cannot be referred to as accelerated.

Depending on which variable is x, y and z, there is no differences for x- and x+. It is the z- and z+ (the vertical) that is different. The 6 directions are simply representing the whole sphere of directions. As we agreed, it needs to be proven over the whole sphere, but the average is going to be somewhere between 1 and 3 and probably near 5/3.
I got the information on G D Birkhoff from a book caleld "The Measure of the Universe" by J D North. He states that Birkhoff produced an explanation of GR from Schroedinger's equations in 1927. Birkhoff was a respected American Mathematician. I am not sure what journal he published his ideas in, but other people continued on with his idea of explaining GR from Schroedinger's equations. However this is a little different. He also gave some GR equivalent equations in vector form (which I find much easier to understand) and these show that relativistic matter is also affected additionally in the same way as light, so that matter at v~=c has a 2x factor and I think the form is (1+v^2/c^2).
I think that the required thing is time rate of change of momentum per unit mass which I called b. Yes, force per unit mass is the same thing I suppose. As long as it is understood that a gravitational field is having a force on radiation and that for horizontal radiation it results in double the acceleration.

Thank You.
Well we will certainly be in the region of small deflections. You didn't like the number of zeros after my decimal point in seconds of arc. :-)

I am sorry that I can't provide a reference concerning NASA.

I first discovered for myself that there was a correlation between planetary alignments (tidal calculation) and sunspots in about 1964. When I went to the library to see if I could find a mention, the only one I found was a mention of someone who proposed the same thing in the 1800s. Later I saw something on NASA, possibly in Scientific American or somewhere like that. But this would have been in the late 1960s I think. As far as I can remember it said something like that NASA were concerned about the safety of astronauts going to the moon and that the only useful predictive tool they had found was planetary alignments.

I did a search of NASA site for planetary alignments and sunspots ...
http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=pla...ite%3Anasa.gov
There you will find two places that say ...

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330 which says:
and elsewhere http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sun.html#alignment says:
I think Eric Christian is guessing.

I am wanting to make a post that has tables of planetary information formatted sensibly. Is there any information on how to do that in this forum? Is there a command like the html preformat option? I have tried to use blank spaces and courier font to get things lined up but it supresses the spaces.

Note added later: Someone has told me that the use of the code instruction works, so I have now posted the relevant material with tables.

Why not first come up with a mathematical description that shows that what you want to do is in any way correct or feasible.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

The calculations performed were to determine the position of the
planets at regular intervals in three dimensions, with respect to the
solar equator. The gravitational forces of each planet were then
calculated, allowing for their masses, distances and directions.
Then in the resulting force all but the N-S component were discarded as
the other components tend to cancel out within one solar rotation.
This N-S component is an acceleration of the solar interior relative
to the exterior, and the direction is north or south in the sun.
It is necessary to integrate the acceleration over time to obtain
a velocity, and then integrate this over time to get a displacement
of matter. The planets that dominate the different components are
different. Venus and the Earth have significant accelerations, but
because of their short periods they do not build up, but instead
reverse. Uranus and Neptune have very small accelerations, but
because of their very long periods they result in significant
displacements of matter. In the resulting displacement of solar
matter, the important planets in order are J, S, N, U. (See Table 3)

It is worth noting here that as far as accelerations go (which may
or may not be important) the formula is I*M/D^2 while for the resulting
displacements the formula is I*M*P^2/D^2 where M=Mass, P=Period and
D=Distance and I=inclination to the sun. But (as Kepler showed) P^2 is
proportional to D^3 and so the result may be expressed as I*M*D.
For the four major planets, all the I's are within 10% of 6 degrees, and
so the result is approximately proportional to M*D which is the same
formula used by COM adherents! However, only the component of COM
which is at right angles to the line of the nodes is important, the
component in the direction of the nodes is not (all the nodes of the
major planets orbits are within 10 degrees of longitude 245 of the
sun's equator).

Note: The COM (Centre of Mass) hypothesis states that the motion of
the sun about the COM of the solar system somehow has an effect on
the sun. There has been no meaningful mechanism proposed for it to
work. The other alternative previously proposed has been tidal forces,
but although there is a mechanism, the effects are too small.

The displacements caused by the planets in the sun were calculated for
the years 1600-2000 and the absolute values (that is with the sign
disregarded) were analysed for cycles. The resulting spectrum shows
many peaks related to various planetary combinations. These are most
easily understood as combinations of the planets frequencies ( which
are just the inverse of the periods), and the frequencies are then
found to be simple combinations such as J+S, J-S, J+N, J-N, J+U, J-U.
These have periods of 8.46, 19.86, 11.07, 12.78, 10.40 and 13.81
respectively. Jupiter's period of 11.86 years also appears, but is
less important than the combinations.

When 264 years of sunspot numbers were analysed, the following periods
were found in order of importance :- 11.07, 10.01, 10.53, 12.09, 9.51,
8.53, 12.93, 13.95. Other researchers have generally reported periods
of 11.1, 9.9 and 11.8 years and sometimes 8.5.

It seems that on the whole the sunspot periods are a close match to the
solar displacement periods due to planetary action. The 10.01/9.9 year
sunspot period is probably related to half the J-S period which is 9.93.
There is no matching period to the 9.51 year sunspot period, but a
possible explanation will be given later.

The amplitudes of the periods in the sunspots are different to those
in the solar displacement periods. The 11.07, 10.40 and 9.93 year
periods are strong in the sunspots while the 12.78, 13.81 and 8.46
year periods are less strong. By comparing the amplitudes in each,
it can be seen that the sun has resonance with periods near about 10.5
years, but much less so with periods above 12 or below 9 years. This
is a classic example of a system with a natural resonant period.

Table 1 below shows the main periods compared, and the relative
amplitudes for sunspots/displacement. These are then graphed in
figure 2 below (not shown here - will try to produce this later), and
the resonance period is shown quite clearly.

Table 1

Comparison of periods found in the calculated solar displacement
caused by the planets with the average planetary periods and with
periods found in the sunspot cycle. Also shown are the amplitudes
of the cycles in the solar displacement and in the sunspots, and the
ratio between these. The ratios indicate that the sun has a resonance
with a period of about 10.5 years.

Code:

Solar Displacement   Planetary Combination   Sunspots         Amplitude
                                                              Ratio
Period  Amplitude    Planets   Period     Period  Amplitude
(years)                        (years)    (years)

13.89    0.7         J-U       13.812     13.95   0.12        0.17
12.80    1.1         J-N       12.782     12.93   0.17        0.15
11.87    0.3         J         11.862     12.09   0.27         -
11.06    1.2         J+N       11.066     11.07   0.51        0.43
10.39    0.8         J+U       10.395     10.51   0.37        0.46
 9.96    0.3        (J-S)/2 ?   9.93      10.01   0.50
                                           9.51   0.25
                                           8.92   0.15
 8.46    1.5         J+S        8.457      8.53   0.19        0.13
                                           8.18   0.11

It is worth mentioning that the main sunspot cycle period which is
11.076+-.009 years, based on an analysis of Schove's maxima dates for
over 2000 years, is very close to the 11.066 year J+N period.

It was an unfortunate coincidence (the solar system is full of them)
that there is a J-V-E period of 11.068 years (or really 22.135 years)
that might confuse the issue.

It is worthwhile explaining the meaning of the 11.066 Jupiter+Neptune
period, and why it is the dominant cycle. In terms of their effect
on the sun, Saturn should rank ahead of Neptune, but Saturn's periods
in relation to the other planets are not generally near the "natural"
solar period. Neptune remains above the Sun's equator for 82.4 years
and then below for 82.4 years. When Neptune is above, then Jupiter
above the equator causes a sunspot maximum, and when Neptune is below
then Jupiter below causes a maximum. This means that every 164.8 years
there is one extra sunspot cycle than the number of times Jupiter goes
around the sun. Actually the timing of the solar interior displacement
is 180 degrees out of phase with the above description for each planet,
but the description is otherwise correct.

The timing of the actual peaks in the sunspot cycle do not match
those in the planets displacement of the solar interior. This is to
be expected with the discovery of resonance, which means that in
effect the sun has a memory, and that different cycles will have
different lag periods according to their distance from the resonant
period. Building a model of this is required, and this is really a
job for a solar physicist. Some attempts at a crude model have
achieved a correlation coefficient of 0.66 with the sunspot cycle,
but it is difficult to get a match in the phase variations and the
amplitude variations simultaneously.

A successful model incorporating resonance will no doubt be able to
explain the Maunder minimum when the sunspot cycle almost stopped.
Clearly what must happen is that the planetary forces get badly out
of phase with the sunspot cycle and reduce its amplitude -- a bit
like pushing a swing at the wrong time will slow it down.

Table 3

Comparison of the relevant planetary attributes.
The Acceleration is calculated as M*sin(I)/D^2 and the Displacement as
M*sin(I)*P^2/D^2 (which is equivalent to M*sin(I)*D or very like COM).
Note that the inclinations are to the solar equator, and that the
periods quoted are relative to the nodes of the orbit with the
solar equator, and so are a little different to normal.

Code:

Planet   Mass  Distance  Period  Inclination  Acceler.  Displacement
    M      D         P        I

Mercury  0.056   0.387  0.2408522   3.18       0.021      0.0012
Venus    0.826   0.723  0.6152078   3.75       0.10       0.039
Earth    1.012   1.000  1.0000417   7.14       0.13       0.13
Mars     0.108   1.524  1.880885    5.51       0.0045     0.016
Jupiter  318.4   5.203   11.86233   6.00       1.228    172.9
Saturn    95.2   9.538   29.4568    5.45       0.099     86.2
Uranus    14.6  19.182   84.016     6.36       0.0044    31.1
Neptune   17.3  30.06   164.802     6.36       0.0021    57.6

Pluto has been omitted as its mass is small.
The Earth's mass includes the moon.

Because of the time element of building up a displacement from a
velocity, it turns out that distant objects such as nearby stars and
the galactic plane generally and the galactic centre have significant
effects on the solar displacement also. As it happens, there is a
lopsidedness of matter in the southern sky, which means that a long
term average heat flow will be biased in the direction of the sun's
south pole (not in the direction of the stars or galaxy).
Over very long periods, the sun moves up and down through the galactic
plane. This would cause major heat flow variations in the sun with
reversals about every 30 million years. It is possible that this is
another link in the chain of events leading to the major extinction
events.

Perhaps we are best to take this a small step at a time because I don't see why you are dissatisfied.

You have agreed that there is a general double bending effect of horizontal radiation under GR. Do you agree that due to interaction between radiation and matter in the Sun's core, this will cause a differential acceleration in the core to what is happening on the surface? (This depends on understanding that the solar core has a much larger proportion of energy or mass in radiation than the surface does).

The reason I am dissatisfied is because you claim that there are general relativistic effects on particles and photons inside the sun, generated by Jupiter. If you would read de Jager and Versteegh, you would find that all possible effects that can be caused by gravity are 10^-4 of the driving forces in the convection zone where the magnetic fields are created.

Have you even estimated what the GR influence of Jupiter is on a particle inside of the Sun, apart from saying that it is twice the classical value?

Now suddenly it is the core - mantle system creating a differential rotation. How do you get this, write down an equation of motion of the particles and/or the photons. I have no idea what kind of interaction of photons and matter you mean here. Do you mean photons being absorbed and reemitted? Or do you meat Compton scattering of the photons off the electrons? or or or or

Words are nice, but like I say, start at the beginning, and say what you want to do.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Surely, as the solar system is in free-fall, the key is the tidal effect which for a stellar sized object must be tiny?

"I M / D²" as acceleration has a unit of "radians kg / m²" strange unit for an acceleration which usually is "m / s²

I think it is time you show some real equations, not some handwaving arguments and made up stuff I M / D² naturally has something to do with a gravitational force G M m / r² but how and what about the inclination remains a mystery. If the rotation around the sun averages out, then why does the N-S motion not average out, because the motion of the planet can be split up into an ellips in the equatorial plane and an ellips in the perpendicular plane.

There are several papers discussing the effects on the sun of the planets and the motion around the barycenter or COM, just take a look at de Jager and Versteegh and at Shirley.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets

Ching-Cheh Hung, Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330

The GR doubling effect on horizontal radiation means that the rate of "free fall" is not the same for different parts of the Sun. Where there is a greater proportion of the energy or mass content that is radiation the rate of fall is faster than where there is a smaller proportion of radiation. The centre has a greater proportion of radiation than the surface.

This is somewhat like tidal effects where the rate of fall varies over the extent of a body, except that tidal effects create a stretching in one direction and a squeezing at all directions at right angles to that. Whereas this effect creates a displacement of the interior relative tothe surface, leading (in combination with rotation) to a slight convection current with a toriodal shape.

Additionally, tidal effects are dependent on M/R^3 whereas this effect is dependent on M/R^2. So you are right that tidal effects are tiny for the galaxy. However this effect also depends on T^2 and for the galaxy (where we remain N and S of the plane for 30 million years at a time) this becomes quite huge.

Radians do not come into acceleration. The angle is only relevant to getting the component of the acceleration in the N-S direction. Strictly it is sin(I) which has no units. However for simplicity I used "I" as the angles are small. Sorry if that created confusion.
To understand why the components average out to a polar direction over a full rotation I show the following diagram.


I am aware of Shirley. However what I am suggesting is different. It is an actual quantifiable mechanism, and it differs in effect due to the sin(I) component which does not occur in the COM case. This difference can be tested. My method can produce an r = 0.66 correlation with the observed sunpot number over many centuries. Can they achieve that?

I presume that this is the paper that you refer to:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f546880v4q757702/
They are discussing tidal forces. I am not. I am referring to a GR effect. I thought that you understood the difference in what I was referring to because in my first post I outlined the different mechanisms previously proposed and explained that this was different to any of them.
Yes. I did that in a post in this thread.

It is most easily understood to consider what would happen to a contained collection of photons that were freely able to move relative to the Sun (i.e. that were not interacting with matter billions of times per second). Such radiation would move in an orbit twice as large as the present solar orbit about the baucentre. That is, the motion would be over millions of kilometers extra to what the Sun itself moves.

From that point, to get to what actually happens there are two things that need to be understood.

1. The component not in the N-S direction is cancelled by solar rotation. That leaves only about 10% of the motion.

2. The radiation and matter in the Sun are constantly interchnaging momentum, so that it is the mixture of the two that will do something. The proportions of the mixture are different at the surface to the core. The proportion of radiation at the surface is extremely small compared to the core. Please see the thread http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...s-surface.html for some background concerning this. An estimate of the proportion of the Sun's mass that is radiation is made.

In addition, if the relativistic component of teh Sun's mass also contributes to this doubling effect (as Birkhoff states it does and I have no reason to believe otherwise) then in that thread it is explained that the relativistic proportion of the solar core matter component is actually much greater than the radiation component. So the effect will be several orders of magnitude greater.
It is not suddenly anything. In my very first post in this thread I stated:
I have done that. However there is a lot of relevant material so it has taken time to post it all. I have covered it all broadly now. In the following post I summarize what is being said.

Let me summarize what has been stated:

A. Previously a number of proposals have been made to explain periods found in the sunspots that relate to planetary motions and alignments. This is a new proposal different from tidal or COM motion.

B. This proposal depends on the fact that horizontal light is bent twice as much by gravity in GR than in Newtonian physics. This means that a mixture of matter and contained radiation falls at a different rate to pure non-relativistic matter.

C. I think that the relativistic component of the mass of matter also has this doubling factor, but that is not perfectly clear. The only direct statements on this are by Birkhoff from the 1920s.

D. Because the solar interior has a larger proportion of radiation (and relativistic mass content) it is more strongly affected than the surface where there is a much smaller proportion.

E. The acceleration on the Solar core tries to move the core relative to the surface. This results in a convection pattern which has a toroidal structure.

F. Because of solar rotation, the acceleration component in the plane of the Solar equator is cancelled out over a solar rotation. This leaves only the N-S component.

G. The direct calculation of the planetary forces and the observed sunspot numbers are not strongly correlated. However Fourier analysis shows they have common cycles periods present. The cycles due to pairs of gas giant planets (which have the largest expected effect) having alignments show that the nearer the period is to 10.5 years, the stronger the amplitude in the sunspots is compared to the amplitude in the planetary forces.

H. If an additional assumption is made that there is some natural resonance of the Sun at 10.5 years, then the planetary forces can be used to calculate the sunspot cycle with a correlation of r = 0.66 over a few centuries.

The fact that a final result is achieved that is this good indicates that the whole method and logic are essentially sound.

This diagram shows the observed amplitude of sunpot periods relative to the preicted ones by the forces calculated from this GR effect. The amplitudes make sense if there is a solar resonance with period 10.5 years.

1. Suppose there is no such resonance. Then what?

2. If you back-extrapolate, will this predict the Maunder minimum?

Then the calculation does not fit the sunspot very well in comparison.
I note that I had 264 years of sunspot numbers, so must have started after the Maunder minimum.

It is possible to see how this model would explain the Maunder minimum, but I have not actually run it for that period. It actually would need a reasonable amount of earlier data to prove that because the resonance has got a "memory" with a half life of about 70 years. That means that you need information from about 1500 onwards to test this thoroughly.

Here is a recent one:

Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets

Ching-Cheh Hung, Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330

Actually, tidal effects are of the order of

~GMd/R³

where d is the distance over which they are being observed. In this case d would be of the order of the solar diameter, so that when you plug all the numbers in it becomes truly tiny. I shan't quote the line from Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy...

There are a series of articles by Mario Nanni in Apeiron Journal on the dependance of weight on height and composition. This might conceivably be connected to the matters raised in this thread. One such paper:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V07N3nan.PDF

Originally I did the calculations for this GR effect on internal radiation (and possibly also relativistic matter content) for the Sun. However there is no reason that such effects cannot also be calculated for the planets. There are two main differences for the planets from the Sun:

1. The proportion of internal radiation is far less. However planets do have hot interiors compared to their surfaces, so there is an imbalance of radiant energy (and relativistic matter energy) between their cores and surface.

2. The planets orbits are elliptical and generally tilted relative to each other and their polar axes are tilted. Therefore planets have a much more imbalanced experience with regard to other planets being N and S of their equators. The outer planets especially experience much larger shifts in other bodies in the solar system going N and S of their equators. In particular, Uranus has a very highly tilted axis so that it experiences all the planets and the Sun going far N and S of its equator.

The increased effect of 2 will only partially offset the the reduced effect of 1 on the planets. Therefore we can expect the magnetic reversals of planets to be slower than in the Sun with its huge radiation content.

For the accelerations to accumulate to significant levels requires imbalanced forces over much longer periods of time, and this is not achieved by simply orbiting with a tilted axis which averages out to zero over a single orbit. However an elliptical orbit means that longer periods are spent at one part than at another, and that effect may accumulate over a long period because these very small accelerations only slowly build to modest velocities and even more slowly to significant displacements of material.

Such effects depend on the planets having fluid interiors.

The planetary orbits elliptical axes slowly rotate in space as does the direction of the spin axis (precession of the equinoxes) and thetilts of the orbits and the rotation axes also vary. This compex set of movements must all be integrated over long periods of time to solve for the GR effects on planets magnetic fields if it is true that this is the origin of or partial explanation of reversing magnetic fields.

Generally it is stated that there is no periodicity in the Earth's magnetic field reversals. However this should be taken to mean that they are not regular. There are in fact periods present in the Earth's magnetic field strength that do affect reversals. The most obvious of these is 1.11 million years and it can be seen clearly over the last 30 million years where there is good data. Additionally a 9 million year period seems likely from the last 80 million years data. See the following graph of magnetic reversals on which I have marked these two periods:



Some support for my hypothesis is found from the fact that a period of 1.11 million years is present in solar system dynamics. I have seen this reported as an energy exchange between Jupiter and Neptune and is the longest solar system cycle that I know of. It is quite likely that the Earth is also affected by that cycle but I have no direct information on that.

The following information might be useful in finding out about long term solar system cycles that affect orbital dynamics and could explain magnetic field reversals in the planets:

Ray,
1. Are you suggesting that the sunspot cycle is a function of the vertical axis of the solar system?
2. Do you think the horizontal axes of the solar system (as integrated in the centre of mass) could have any bearing on the sunspot cycle?
3. Could you explain, for those like me whose knowledge of GR is limited, what is meant by the relativistic matter of the sun and how it is measured?
Thanks
Robert

Hi Robert
Not of the solar system, but of the Sun. The axis of the Sun is tilted 7 degrees relative to the Earth's orbit and 6 degrees relative to the 4 gas giants (and what is called the "invariant plane" of the solar system). It is the N and S motion of the 4 gas giants relative to the sun's equator that is most important.

Normally the alignments of the 4 gas giants have been taken as important, but in this case it is the N-S motion. These two are highly correlated because the 4 orbits are in a similar plane. However there will be some slight differences in timing.
I cannot say definitely but I think not. I was fairly sure that this did not lead to any effects for a long time. More recently I saw it explained as the motion of the Sun through its own magnetic field, and can see that this might be a factor. However relative to say the CMB the Sun is moving at 370 km/s through its own magnetic field all the time. So this motion is small compared to that. But maybe acceleration is important rather than motion, because acceleration is not so relative.
The rest mass of matter is its lowest mass (M), as measured when the observer is sharing the motion of that matter. The relativistic mass (M_r) is the mass that is observed when matter is in motion.
M_r = M / (1 - v^2/c^2)^(1/2)
When I say the relativistic mass content, I mean the difference between these two. At the higher temperatures near the solar core, not only is there more radiation but also the matter is in faster relative motion so the relativistic mass content increases in two ways.

There is some difficulty with this concept, because as we look at smaller and smaller components of matter it does seem that more and more of the mass is actually relativistic as things keep getting made of smaller things in motion.
Hope that it helps
Ray

Sorry, you have give some handwaving arguments and lots of zeros.
I have seen no real math from you.
You seem to be thinking that the influence of Jupiter (classical or relativistically) on particles in the sun is significant, but you have not even taken into account all other forces that are working in the Sun. Yes, you may say that "that is not what I am looking at, I am looking at relativistic stuff," but all the same ALL forces are working and you will need to take them ALL into account.

But, I don't think you will come up with anything real here, just correlations, handwaving etc.

Like the force of Jupiter off equator, your diagram. Sure, if you would look at one rotation of the Sun, in the end the net force will be poleward, but that is for a couple of day. You then totally ignore how much this acceleration is (no value given) and how much the displacement. At the same time, however, Jupiter is moving too, and your beloved correlation between the sunspot cycle and Jupiters orbital period means that Jupiter will be in the north and in the south, and over one rotation of Jupiter the net result will be zero, just like the effect in the equatorial plane for one Solar rotation.

So, like I said, start at the beginning, and write down the equations. Don't forget that the Sun is not a static ball of gas, but has various zones, and the zone that you should be mainly interested in is the convection zone, where the magnetic field is generated. There your puny Jupiter force needs to compete with the convective forces.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

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.

Attached Thumbnails

 

Could you remove the URL and just leave it to be viewed as an attachment? That's pretty big and my eyeballs are experiencing geodynamic expansion now. Thanks.

geodynamic expansion??