A local cosmological near-constant number imbedded in the structure of the solar system forms a 178.867624:1 ratio between the main rhythm of the solar system centre of mass and the year on earth. Centre of Mass against Position of the Sun (COMPOS) charts 600 years of solar system centre of mass data. The number 178.867624 is derived by plotting all main turning points of this chart and averaging their period. This constant describes a main structure of time, a periodic cycle of the solar system resulting from the interaction of Sun, Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune. Uranus, as the fourth big planet, is slightly out of alignment with this basic underlying cycle, and produces the secondary wiggle moving backwards against the 179 year JSN permanent cycle. Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune also slowly drift away from exact harmonic relations, but the main SSB 178.9 year cycle continues against these longer wave patterns.
Of interest for sunspot prediction dates, Jupiter-Saturn SSB Sunspot cycle posted by JimP at Jupiter influencing sunspots shows that a specific pattern of sunspots were aligned directly with the Jupiter-Saturn cycle in ~1893-1913 (my ‘cycle 3’) and also in the corresponding period 179 years before at ~1710-1730 (my ‘cycle 2’). I believe this pattern is of interest, as my COMPOS chart clearly shows the planets produced this same pattern at SSB cycles 1 (~1535-55) and 4 ( ~2070-90). Cycles 2 and 3 are those for which historical sunspot data exist.
As well, 178.867624 is 1/144th of the earth’s precessional period of ~25764 years. Ray Tomes has noted that harmonic cycles of period 2 and 3 are common in nature, making combined cycles of period 12 also common. The combined period of 3x4=12 SSB cycles closely matches 1/12 of the precession. This is an example of harmonic resonance in the solar system, entraining the precession period against the solar system barycentre.
My chart showing 178.867624 as a near-constant was first posted in response to Ray Tomes’ thread Explaining Planetary Alignments Relationship to the Sunspot Cycle . As Ray notes it presents a separate ATM idea.

So where does the Maunder Minimum fit into all this? Why was there a period of about 70 years (1645-1715) where there were practically no sunspots and no aurorae while the Sun continued to loop about the Solar System barycenter?

What we have here is yet another astrology and numerology thread. Move on. Nothing to see here.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

These cycles continued during the Maunder Minimum. Your comment that this is numerology is like saying that Planck's Constant is numerology.

Is there something significant about 178.867624? If it was a 180:1 I'd be impressed but 178.867624 doesn't seem in any way significant.

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

That's very interesting

I'll take you out for a Dutch Treat.

Where did all of those significant digits come from? In physics, your answer can only be as precise as the least precise of the numbers used to obtain it.

And remember, precision is not the same as accuracy.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

Accurate to 6 decimal places? can you show us your calculations please?

This is like in Star Trek when spock is always over precise in his 'approximate times. 'In approximately fourteen point six five seconds captain'

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

As long as you are carrying your magic number to nine significant figures, don't forget to allow for the perturbations right here on Planet Earth that could perturb its motions. A few examples:

Butterflies, including the migratory monarch butterflies.

Recurring boom-bust cycles of lemmings in Arctic regions.

The sudden redistribution of water when millions of toilets were flushed going into halftime at the Super Bowl.

Not to mention big shakes such as sporadic major earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

For all we know, the cumulative effect of these actions could alter our planet's spin and precession rates slightly, mucking up your calculations.

All thosde ships and aircraft moving around the planet. Millions of people moving into London every morning in the Rush hour etc.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Nice try at comparing good apples (Planck's Constant) to rotten oranges.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

As I explained, the solar pulse is a near-constant. The nine digits given are derived as the average SSB pulse for the 73 main stationary points from 1500-2099 (defined as period between similar wave peaks and troughs). These pulse points are almost all within one year of my magic number, with a quarter of them within 0.1 years. The source is NASA JPL ephemeris, which I understand is very precise and accurate for this dataset. I will analyse the data to quantify the rate of change in this number since 1500.

Cycles of periods of 2 and 3 would make combined cycles of 6 common, not 12.

Why 3X4? You said Tomes noted cycles of 2 and 3 are common, not cycles of 2 cycles of 2. Which is what you need to get the four in there.


Ahhhh, this should be a doh! moment. IF your 178.GIGO is 1/144 of the earth's precession, shouldn't 12 cycles closely match 1/12 of the precession? After all, 12 X 1/144 IS 1/12. Nothing miraculous here.

Actually, this whole post is nothing more than numerological hogwash. As Celestial Mechanic so elegantly put it:

What we have here is yet another astrology and numerology thread. Move on. Nothing to see here.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Here is a picture showing the change in the solar pulse since 1590, a decrease of rate by 0.05 years per 179 year cycle. It shows the 2010 value of 178.925 is in far more precise alignment with the precessional figure than the 600 year average (178.86) given in the opening post. Rather than the 7-8 year error suggested by my initial calculations, this gives an error of 0.3 years (0.001%) of 144 SSB cycles against a precession period of 25765 years. The hypothesis of a connection between the SSB and precession can easily be tested if data is available for the change in rate of precession.


[Massive image removed by moderator - see attachment if you're interested.]

Attached Images

Solar Pulse 1590-2010.GIF (12.7 KB, 39 views)

Bigger does not automatically equate to more accurate.

179 year cycle? What 179 year cycle?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Actually if one inverts the chart and revises the x and y units (x = time, y = $/gallon) it looks like this:

Gas prices.jpg

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

BTW, Robert, remember this post from Jim?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Obviously not.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

The date points for the 179 year cycle are as follows

Group 1
1516.133; 1524.336; 1532.985; 1544.294; 1554.71; 1563.611; 1573.275; 1585.111; 1593.833; 1601.366; 1610; 1611.836; 1616.982; 1625.253; 1632.63; 1639.613; 1646.391; 1650.713; 1656.272; 1664.307; 1671.81; 1678.955;

Group 2
1694.861; 1703.272; 1712.138; 1722.036; 1733.441; 1742.157; 1751.527; 1764.339; 1772.579; 1780.052; 1787.746; 1791.377; 1796.149; 1804.272; 1811.433; 1818.605; 1825.519; 1829.691; 1835.097; 1843.261; 1850.883; 1858.264;

Group 3
1873.568; 1882.275; 1891.127; 1900.441; 1912.324; 1920.904; 1929.694; 1943.863; 1951.383; 1958.772; 1966.302; 1970.506; 1975.202; 1983.238; 1990.313; 1997.649; 2004.821; 2008.667; 2013.855; 2022.122; 2030.063; 2037.839;

Part Group 4
2052.103; 2061.291; 2069.996; 2079.458; 2091.219; 2099.444;

These are the exact dates at which the SSB – Position of Sun distance is at maximum or minimum. Looking at my opening post chart it can readily be seen that the shape of the curve follows a 179 year pattern by comparing it at 1516, 1694, 1873 and 2052 or any other 3 or 4 dates from the same relative positions in the above groups. My next chart shows that the speed of these cycles is slowing with a steady clear trend of about 0.05 years per cycle. For example, the average period between similar station points for Groups 1-2 was 178.82. This has since slowed down so the average period between station points for Groups 3-4 is 178.92, which as I pointed out = 25765/144 to an error of 0.001%.

You've got twelve starting data points and somehow you've managed to transform those into a number that goes to 6 significant figures with an 0.001 % error factor (based on a 99/99 confidence interval I take it)?

See me after class, please.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.