Thanks Robert Tulip. I'll get you a Carnation.

The simplest way to get the actual effects on the Sun is to consider the motion of the Sun about the COM of the Solar system and adjust from there. If the centre of the Sun were 100% radiation or relativistic mass content then it would try to move about by 5/3 times as much as the COM. However the component of this motion in the plane of the Sun's equator is cancelled by rotation and has very littel effect.

The component in the N-S direction is reduced by a factor of 10 because the gas giants orbits are inclined by about 6 degrees to the solar equator. Here comes some maths :-) sin(6 degrees) = 0.10 near enough. That means that the N-S motion of the core would be quite substantial, but ...

The part that is most difficult to quantify is the relativistic mass content of the Sun. This is not my problem, but a problem in Solar theory. There is not a good agreement about the time it takes radiation to get from the solar core to the surface. This time is needed to combine with the rate at which radiant energy is leaving the Sun to determine the radiation content. I have seen figures that vary from 10,000 to 10,000,000 years, which is not a lot of help. In the thread that I referred to recently on this question a figure of 170,000 years was mentioned. However this is still possibly not accurate. Additionally it does seem that the matter reltivistic mass content needs to be included and this is more substantial. The answer to an order of magnitude is given in that thread.

Finally, you can multiply the COM movements in the N-S direction after multiplying by 0.10 by this rather uncertain proportion to get the motion of the Solar interior. (more below)
Certainly. Existing models of the Sun do not incorporate this effect and assume thatb there is no convection below a certain depth. I did note that since I first proposed this it has been discovered that the actual convection depth is deeper than expected as I would have expected.

Of course this convection must be incorporated into the existing models because it affects heat flow and there will be feedbacks.
Well it isn't handwaving to show that existing physics does expect this factor to be significant and it should be allowed for in models. It is a known fact that solar models do not actually work totally correctly.

If you denigrate correlations then you denigrate science. That is all science is.
Jupiter remains above and below the solar equator for 6 years at a time. Its 11.86 year orbital cycle does show up in the sunspot cycle Fourier analysis along with other periods.
That puny Jupiter force is sufficient to cause a motion of several kilometers in the solar core over a siz year period. However the calculation depends on the correct relativistic mass content of the Sun which is not known very accurately. If you tell me what that is accurately I will tell the accurate answer.

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.

rtomes, the force is not only working on the core, it is working on the whole Sun. So it would be lifted by Jupiter in it entirety. Why would only the core be influenced?

I am impressed by your math, thank you.

Sorry, but you bring up this ATM stuff, so it is REALLY your problem.

HUH? multiply the movements? I thought that motion was a vector quantity, so you should add them up to start with. And once again, the force works on the whole sun not just the interior.

You keep on forgetting, rtomes that the convection region is THE region for you to work on, because that is where the magnetic field is generated, NOT in the core. Read up on dynamo theory. Sunspots are related to the magnetic field.

I do not denigrate correlations, I use cross correlations all the time in my job. But correlation is not causation!!!!!!!!!! No matter how high the regression coefficient is, only when you have a model/process that would explain the correlation do you have something handfast. You can find numerous correlations on the internet that map e.g. the selling of red cars to the phase of the moon, or whatever.

Yeah, but over those six years it will have an increasing angle from zero to maximum to zero again. Integrating this to get an average I think, if I am correct from the top of my head, this will decrease your effect by a factor 1/3 (but please check it for yourself).

And I know you like Fourier, but only on average is the sunspot cycle 11 years, how does your Jupiter pulling handle that? You certainly will be in trouble mapping the Maunder minimum (or did the planets suddenly have no influence on the Sun at that period?) etc. etc.

Yes, those are the tidal forces workin on the sun as a whole. I am not sure about the amplitude, I found a quote from an
Icarus paper (J. Meeus, Icarus 26, 257-267, 1975) that the amplitude was millimeters. The paper basically debunks the book "the Jupiter effect" of which this thread is only a part of the that book. Unfortunately, I do not have the pdf at the moment.

And here is another paper showing no influence on solar activity from the planets.

Unfortunately, I cannot find a direct (visible) reference to the amplitude of the tide on the Sun created by Jupiter.

I do not see why I should do the work for you, define your "relativistic mass" yourself.

so in the end: words words words.
wake me up when you have a real mathematical model Ray, till then, see you later.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

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. 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? 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? 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? 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.

The actual effect is an increased acceleration (by a factor of 5/3) of the radiation and other relativistic mass contents. As previously explained, there is a differential between the effect on the core and the surface because the proportion of the mass that is radiation and relativistic mass is varying with temperature as you move from the core to the surface.

At the surface the proportion that is radiation and relativistic mass is only a tiny fraction of what it is in the core.
You are welcome.
I don't have a problem. I have shown that there is a physical effect that is to be expected even though it has been ignored previously. To have correct models of the Sun requires incorporating this effect.
Are you referring to the multiply by 0.10?

If so, then that is the component of the acceleration vector in the polar direction. It is multiplication of a vector (the acceleration of matter in the Sun by Jupiter for example) by a scalar (the sine of the angle between the plane of the Sun's orbit and the direction of Jupiter at that time) to get a vector (the component of the acceleration out of the plane of the Sun's equator). That is quite proper maths.

Before you can do maths you have to have a decription of what is happening. The maths comes later. But as I have pointed out, the necessary information to put into the maths is not available with sufficient accuracy. Therefore the results are only order of magnitude results. But the order of magnitude is sufficient to explain temperature variations of the order of those observed over the Solar cycle.
So wouldn't it be the case that if the zone presently thought to be only radiative was found to have a slight convection which changed direction with the sunspot cycle then the convection would be expected to be altered?

Does the present model of the sun produce an actual result that predicts the sunspot cycle? If so what period does it predict? If the present model is useful, does it predict that the sunspot cycle varies in magnitude and period from cycle to cycle? Do you not think that there is some room for improvement in that model?
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22se...22&btnG=Search
Sadly not.

However you misrepresent what I am doing. I gave reasons why existing standard physics expects such an effect of the planets on the Sun. Then I showed that the periodicities found in the Sun match those that are predicted by such standard physics.

Then I showed that the phase and amplitude of such cycles have a strong correlation only if there is a natural resonance in the Sun of 10.5 years. I would suggest that such a result might be found within standard magnetic theory of the Sun. If it cannot, then standard physics cannot explain the sunspot cycle. If it can, then my explanation allos the variations in the sunspot cycle length and amplitude to be able to be understood far more clearly than ever before. And also potentially predicted more accurately.
It will give an average of sqrt(2)/2 or 0.707 times as much.

This was all correctly allowed for in my computer program calculations of the effect over a number of centuries because I calculated the vetors at regular intervals. It is all built in to that final 0.66 correlation that I mentioned.
As I have already answered other people, the Maunder minimum could be understood as the phase of the planetary forces being opposed in phase to the natural rhythm of the Sun (which I calculate to be 10.5 years). That means that it reduces the amplitude of the natural oscillation. Such events will happen from time to time, but are less common because the amplitude-phase diagram is 2-dimensional and it requires the two dimensions (the sine and cosine components) to both go to near zero at the same time.
Even the author of the Jupiter Effect has acknowledged it as wrong.

I am not arguing for the tidal forces, so that is not relevant to my case. However the tidal forces do get things partly right. I suggest that you see the NASA paper quoted earlier and the site of about this that I quoted in my very first post.
Well isn't it strange that over all the recorded period, the J-V-E syzygies do match the solar peaks? And J-V-E are the three strongest tidal planets. And this calculation predicts a bimodal distribution with peaks at 10.4 and 12.0 years, just as the actual cycle has. If they could find no correlations then they didn't look at the data the right way.
That is because I am the first person to mention it.
I already did. The relativistic mass component is the difference between the total mass of the components in a single reference frame and the sum of the masses of the components in their individual reference frames. That definition includes radiation and relativistic mass increase of matter. The single reference frame used will be the centre of the Sun near enough. To be perfectly precise it will be in the reference frame of a region of matter and radiation in the sun.
I have now fully described all of the calculations that need to be done.

You have acknowledged the 2x effect on horizontal photons (in the low field case). Do you also acknowledge the same factor for matter at relativistic velocities? Based on your answer I will again list the exact calculations to be done.

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
As I said. Count the number of peaks between these and show how they relate to the number of sunspoit cycle peaks.

In an email the following recent NASA paper was mentioned to me. It seems that NASA study of planetary connections to Sunspots is alive and well.
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330

Thanks Ray, in JimP’s chart of sunspots against barycentre, you can clearly see the minima alignment to the 178.9 year cycle. I take your point that this is not proof of a physical connection, given that the average sunspot period here (178.35 years) is half a year less than the SSB cycle, producing a very small drift forward of sunspots against each SSB cycle. Comparing the periods 1734-1755 = 1913-1933 you can see the SSB and sunspot minima are both directly aligned to the Jupiter-Saturn cycle. I think this is worth further study. The data for these patterns are here.

Well I don't know about these dates for minima in the first column. Here is the wikipedia graph of sunspots over the period and you can see that you need a good imagination to fit them.


Whatever, you are producing only 15 cycles in 178 years. That is an average of 11.86 years which is Jupiter's period around the Sun. It certainly is the correct measure of the dominant period in the COM motion. However it is not the correct period for the sunspot cycle. The average period is much nearer to 178 / 16 = 11.1 years.

It should be added that the sunspot cycle does follow Jupiter's period (11.86 years) for a while and then races off and follows J-S conjunctions for a while (9.93 years) and then back again, averaging out at 11.08 years over the last 2500 years according to Schove's data.

Well, I think you really have to show that to us. As GR is a general theory of gravity I would be surprised if it worked on the core different than on the outer layers, because, in the limit you get Newton and that shows that gravity is only dependent on the mass inside the sphere of the location where you are.

It is like so many ATM proposals, they sound nice if you write up stuff in words, might even make some sense, but then getting a real calculation, well that takes more than the 30 days a thread is open.

Sure you do have a problem. You want something that regular solar models do not have, and they still work.

No, I am not, you write: Finally, you can multiply the COM movements in the N-S direction after multiplying by 0.10.

I am not talking about that 0.1 I am talking about you multiplying the COM movements. There is no such thing, movement is velocity. Velocity is a vector which you can either add to another, or take the inner (dot) product (giving you a scalar) or take the outer (cross) product (giving you a vector perpendicular to both multiplied vectors). So, what are you multiplying here and in what way?

but not what you wrote.

That is nonsense, you can do math without numbers. That is why we invented math, you use symbols. Then you can put in numbers, after it has been checked that your symbolic manipulation is correct, and then we get some estimates.

I think not, because of what we know of the Sun through helioseismology.

No, it does not, however, people are working on dynamo models that are getting better and better. I am not up to date with the current state (maybe Papageno knows about that) and how sunspot come into the model, apart from buoyancy of the magnetic field etc.

You have show correlations, you have not shown a model and calculations, there is a difference.

That is the average value of sin²?

I doubt you are the first person to mention the amplitude of the tide on the Sun created by Jupiter.

Why wait for my permission? Do the calcul