Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Paradigmer on 17/01/2019 15:03:09
-
I was pondering on could solar cycle be dominated by the barycenters of the Solar System, and thus did a case study research on it:
The UVS case study on the barycenter drivers of the solar cycle (https://www.uvs-model.com/The%20case%20study%20for%20the%20barycenter%20drivers%20of%20the%20solar%20cycle.pdf)
The presentation despite is self-contained, it is quite technical and requires some background knowledge for understanding it. The foundation for this case study research is from the UVS inductive resolution on sunspot (https://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20sunspot.htm).
Welcome to explore this hypothesis from an all new perspective.
-
Thanx for the link, i will read it later. In the meantime it reminds me that Prof R T Cahill found a link tween sunspots & turbulence in the aetherwind (that he called gravity waves), moving south to north throo Earth & the Sun at 500 kmps. He also found that the GWs (turbulence)(approx 30 kmps) had a link to the Shnoll Effects.
The turbulence seems to be linked to the gravity of the Moon Sun & planets (probly moreso the larger planets).
Anyhow i will have a read of that paper & see if any connection.
-
The planetarium for the case study research in its frame of reference, was setup with a quasi Solar System Barycenter (SSB) placed as the center of the Solar System. The Sun as well as the four gas giants, revolve around this SSB in the reference frame.
The significant barycenters of the four gas giants that aligned with the Sun and SSB on the solar maxima or solar minima for the 24 empirically observed solar cycles, were then plotted onto the snapshot planetarium charts.
The outcomes from this perspective, are absolutely astounding.
-
Some insights that had led to this case study research on the solar cycle of the sunspots:
- Paradoxically, the Sun does not rise in the east like it apparently seems to be, it is not stationary like it had been believed to be so with the putative laws of physics that postulates heliocentrism, and it is also not the center of the Solar System like it was being thought as with conventional wisdom; nothing could be further from the truth than these false facts that were conceived in all sorts of delusion about the Sun.
- All physical objects are ruled by the motions of their nonmaterial vortical entities.
-
A Solar Cycle Lost in 1793-1800: Early Sunspot Observations Resolve the Old Mystery
(http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700L.154U)
This suggests the putative 11-year solar cycle, is merely a statistical error.
The 11-year solar cycle is merely a putative period; it was averaged from the 24 solar cycles with periods that range from 9 year to 13.6 year.
-
I was pondering on could solar cycle be dominated by the barycenters of the Solar System, and thus did a case study research on it:
The UVS case study on the barycenter drivers of the solar cycle (https://www.uvs-model.com/The%20case%20study%20for%20the%20barycenter%20drivers%20of%20the%20solar%20cycle.pdf)
The presentation despite is self-contained, it is quite technical and requires some background knowledge for understanding it. The foundation for this case study research is from the UVS inductive resolution on sunspot (https://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20sunspot.htm). Welcome to explore this hypothesis from an all new perspective.
Thanx for the link, i will read it later. In the meantime it reminds me that Prof R T Cahill found a link tween sunspots & turbulence in the aetherwind (that he called gravity waves), moving south to north throo Earth & the Sun at 500 kmps. He also found that the GWs (turbulence)(approx 30 kmps) had a link to the Shnoll Effects.The turbulence seems to be linked to the gravity of the Moon Sun & planets (probly moreso the larger planets). Anyhow i will have a read of that paper & see if any connection.The planetarium for the case study research in its frame of reference, was setup with a quasi Solar System Barycenter (SSB) placed as the center of the Solar System. The Sun as well as the four gas giants, revolve around this SSB in the reference frame.
The significant barycenters of the four gas giants that aligned with the Sun and SSB on the solar maxima or solar minima for the 24 empirically observed solar cycles, were then plotted onto the snapshot planetarium charts.
The outcomes from this perspective, are absolutely astounding.
I suspect that this means that the Sun's orbit around the SSB is not an ellipse. A study of the conjunctions of the major planets is little more than a study of the Sun's actual orbit compared to the ideal ellipse. I suspect that the alignment of the giants accords with the glitches in the Sun's orbits. Some insights that had led to this case study research on the solar cycle of the sunspots:
- Paradoxically, the Sun does not rise in the east like it apparently seems to be, it is not stationary like it had been believed to be so with the putative laws of physics that postulates heliocentrism, and it is also not the center of the Solar System like it was being thought as with conventional wisdom; nothing could be further from the truth than these false facts that were conceived in all sorts of delusion about the Sun.
- All physical objects are ruled by the motions of their nonmaterial vortical entities.
Yes, see my above comments. A Solar Cycle Lost in 1793-1800: Early Sunspot Observations Resolve the Old Mystery (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700L.154U) This suggests the putative 11-year solar cycle, is merely a statistical error. The 11-year solar cycle is merely a putative period; it was averaged from the 24 solar cycles with periods that range from 9 year to 13.6 year.
Nonetheless there are 12 cycles in 130 years which is about 11 years average.
-
Ok here is what i am thinking.
(1) Sunspots mainly live tween 5 deg & 35 deg latitude, ie an average of 17 deg. This might possibly be explained by the aetherwind if the aetherwind blows at 17 deg to the Sun's spin-axis. I don’t know what angle the wind blows, it blows south to north at 500 kmps at 20 deg (or even 23 deg) to Earth's spin-axis, RA 4:30.
If the wind blows at 17 deg to the Sun's spin-axis then that means that the LLC-bulge (an ellipse) of the Sun is in the plane of the 17 deg latitude. Each point of the sun's true equator spins throo that pseudo equatorial LLC-bulge say twice per 27 days. I don’t know the angle of the wind, it must be i think tween 00 deg & 43 deg, 17 deg is a good bet.
This creates an LLC-tide if u like, all points on the Sun pulsate (twice per Solar sidereal day) closer-farther from the spin-axis as the size & shape of the Sun changes, & this pulsation gives us sunspots.
Also the LLC-tide must have some associated harmonics (as per Moon tides on Earth)(probly a minor issue).
(2) There might be a centrifuging of aether cause of sunspots. Here the conjunction of the giants adds a pseudo-g to the gravity-g. The pseudo-g is due to the centrifugal force of the orbits, which are aligned (either additively or subtractively)(both work). Due to centrifugal inertia aether is sucked in to the Sun along the planet to Sun line, the acceleration of the inflow being radial & varying with 1/R (the inflow streamlines converge in 2 dimensions)(pseudo-g varies per 1/R) compared to the 1/RR of the gravity-g (the inflow streamlines converge in 3 dimensions).
This brings about a change in the aforementioned pulsations, & this change somehow results in new sunspots.
-
I suspect that this means that the Sun's orbit around the SSB is not an ellipse.
It is indeed not.
As a matter of fact, Dr. Ivanka Charvátová with her work on solar inertial motion (https://www.klimaskeptik.cz/news/interview-with-dr-ivanka-charvatova-csc-from-gfu/), illustrated that the Sun cyclically orbits the SSB in a trefoil-like trajectory.
-
There might be a centrifuging of aether cause of sunspots.
Absolutely! The centrifuging of aether that causes sunspots to spawn, is manifested by resonated vortical effects to form the voids in the photosphere as sunspots.
From the UVS perspective, the actual SSB is the primary aetheric void of aether in the Solar System, the significant planetary barycenters of the gas giants, are the secondary aetheric voids of aether that are harmonically formed by the main aetheric void.
The vortically condensed aetheric medium, coalesced to form as the photosphere of the Sun, and sunpots are mainly impelled to form around solar jets, which are modulated by the polar vortex of the photosphere. In this sense, a sunspot is a harmonica aetheric void, which is vortically formed.
-
There might be a centrifuging of aether cause of sunspots.
Absolutely! The centrifuging of aether that causes sunspots to spawn, is manifested by resonated vortical effects to form the voids in the photosphere as sunspots.
From the UVS perspective, the actual SSB is the primary aetheric void of aether in the Solar System, the significant planetary barycenters of the gas giants, are the secondary aetheric voids of aether that are harmonically formed by the main aetheric void.
The vortically condensed aetheric medium, coalesced to form as the photosphere of the Sun, and sunpots are mainly impelled to form around solar jets, which are modulated by the polar vortex of the photosphere. In this sense, a sunspot is a harmonica aetheric void, which is vortically formed.
My centrifuging of aether is based on an equivalence of gravitational mass & inertial mass. The acceleration of aether inflow into mass (ie as u get closer), which accelerates objects (gravity g), is in a way equivalent (but mirror-image wise) to when a static object is made to accelerate giving inertia-g. Logically a spinning object must suck aether inwards towards the spin-axis, & likewise an orbiting object must suck aether inwards towards the axis of orbit. In both cases the aether is then spat out axially. At conjunction the centrifugal-g's can be additive & thusly affect the gross-g on & in the Sun. Somehow creating sunspots.
Prof Robitaille has some youtube footage on his sky scholar site where he explains the makeup & creation of sunspots, but he doesnt mention aether or the giants. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sky+scholar
Prof Reg Cahill has an amazing 2014 paper where he mentions solar flares & sunspots & ejections in relation to measured turbulence in the aetherwind (Cahill calls it dynamic space) blowing south to north throo the Sun at 500 kmps, the turbulence (which he likens to a kind of GW) giving a 6 day warning for flares, & he also mentions a link to global warming.
http://www.ptep-online.com/2014/PP-39-10.PDF
-
Prof Robitaille has some youtube footage on his sky scholar site where he explains the makeup & creation of sunspots, but he doesnt mention aether or the giants. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sky+scholar
Thanks for the search results. Prof Robitaille indeed has interesting youtube footage for explaining the creation of sunspots. Yup he did not mention aether or the giants.
If anyone tries to look at the alignment of the gas giants with the Sun, he would not conclusively find anything that correlates with the solar cycles at all. Been there, done that.
In the case study research, there are 19 cases (2 Min, 10 Min, 10 Max, 11 Min, 11 Max, 12 Max, 13 Min, 13 Max, 14 Min, 14 Max, 16 Max, 17 Min, 17 Max, 18 Min, 18 Max, 19 Min, 20 Max, 21 Max, and 23 Max) on the ISN proposed solar minima or maxima that were apparently driven by the alignments of Sun-SSB and the effective planetary barycenters, and they were not caused by any direct alignment of any two gas giants that aligns with the Sun. These peaks and troughs of the sunspots apparently were subliminally driven by the nonmaterial objects that have physical effects on the Sun.
Try to find any alignment of gas giants with the Sun in this cases, would see nothing was driving the peaks and troughs of these solar cycles at all. I believe the research on correlation of solar cycle and the alignments of gas giants, has been debunked and dismissed long ago.
The UVS case study research shows that solar cycles highly correlates with the alignments of the SSB, Sun, and the barycenter of the gas giants.
I don't think anyone had ever looked from this perspective at all.
If you look from the solar maximum of solar cycle 12 to the solar maximum of solar cycle 15, you would find 7 successive solar maxima and solar minima, were all modulated by the alignment of Sun, SSB, and the barycenter of Jupiter and Saturn (BJS).
Solar physics is missing something big time on barycentric alignments of the Solar System.
Prof Reg Cahill has an amazing 2014 paper where he mentions solar flares & sunspots & ejections in relation to measured turbulence in the aetherwind (Cahill calls it dynamic space) blowing south to north throo the Sun at 500 kmps, the turbulence (which he likens to a kind of GW) giving a 6 day warning for flares, & he also mentions a link to global warming.http://www.ptep-online.com/2014/PP-39-10.PDF
Its an amazing paper, and I totally agree with his work that shows sunspot number is correlated with the surface ocean temperature of the Earth.
The UVS case study research evaluates the solar cycle from a different aspect though.
Take some moment to try to understand the setup of the barycentric planetarium chart, and once you get the hang of it, an entirely new worldview of a barycentric driven Solar System, could be revealed to you.
The mysterious drivers for solar cycle, the Hallstatt cycle and its quasi cycles, were thus resolved with this inductive resolution of the Solar System. The climatic change of the Solar System, could thus become very predictable.
“You simply won't find activities that you don't visualize.” - ScottF. Gilbert
-
Yes i can understand that there is always a barycenter of the giants & of some of the giants, & that such a barycenter or barycenters will always have an angle or angles. And i understand that the angle, & the radius, are not necessarily a good measure of the strength of the barycenter, or a good measure of any alignment (the closer the alignment of giants then the stronger the gravitational effect).
But i reckon that the effect of the barycenters is more related to the rate of change of say gravity moreso than the existence of an ordinary max or min of gravity. The max or min can be trumped by a max or min of the rate of change, & this might occur say midway tween the ordinary max & min. Its the rate of change that gives pulse, & we are looking for a pulse, the stronger the better. A little kick in the right place at the right time can cause an eruption.
I think that Robitaille mentions that the hex layers of the liquid metallic hydrogen (in the Sun) trap helium or something within & occasionally the equilibrium is spoiled & a boiling occurs. This might contribute to sunspots or flares or eruptions.
-
I think that Robitaille mentions that the hex layers of the liquid metallic hydrogen (in the Sun) trap helium or something within & occasionally the equilibrium is spoiled & a boiling occurs. This might contribute to sunspots or flares or eruptions.
Robitaille insights on the hex layers of liquid metallic hydrogen is indeed profound. And this could amount to the knowledge that contribute to the predictions for sunspots or flares or eruptions.
The barycenters of the Solar System, can be perceived conceived as the points of displacement of aether in the aetheric worldview. The actual SSB (I call this the Barycenter of the Solar System; BOTSS) is a singularity point of the Solar System where all Solar System objects, including the quasi SSB, are actually revolving around.
The case study research is not into the micro mechanism of what manifests the sunspots; it illustrates the macro mechanism in the Solar System that apparently were modulating the solar cycles.
This is a groundbreaking discovery, and it could significantly contribute to solar physics. And it is a significant discovery that could raise the heads of those good aether theorists, whom were so suppressed by the modern physics religion.
-
I think that Robitaille mentions that the hex layers of the liquid metallic hydrogen (in the Sun) trap helium or something within & occasionally the equilibrium is spoiled & a boiling occurs. This might contribute to sunspots or flares or eruptions.
Robitaille insights on the hex layers of liquid metallic hydrogen is indeed profound. And this could amount to the knowledge that contribute to the predictions for sunspots or flares or eruptions.
The barycenters of the Solar System, can be conceived as the points of displacement of aether in the aetheric worldview. The actual SSB (I call this the Barycenter of the Solar System; BOTSS) is a singularity point of the Solar System where all Solar System objects, including the quasi SSB, are actually revolving around.
The case study research is not into the micro mechanism of what manifests the sunspots; it illustrates the macro mechanism in the Solar System that apparently were modulating the solar cycles.
This is a groundbreaking discovery, and it could significantly contribute to solar physics. And it is a significant discovery that could raise the heads of those good aether theorists, whom were so suppressed by the modern physics religion.
From an aetherwind point of view we have a fairly constant 500 kmps south to north aetherwind blowing throo the solar system. In addition Cahill says that that wind has a plus or minus 30 kmps turbulence (which has no link or relationship to Earth's 30 kmps orbit). The turbulence is praps almost continuous, ie there is no calm period to speak of. So where does this turbulence come from? Gravity is due to the acceleration of aether flowing into mass where the aether is annihilated. The acceleration of aether acts on objects, but as aether has no mass it merely transmits force from object to object. That transmission is via a reverberation effect, travelling at over 20 billion c (Van Flandern). But that cant really be the source of Cahill-Turbulence. The only thing i can think of is Ranzan's theory re the annihilation of mass inside BH's. Ranzan says that the annihilation involves an intermittent sudden quick collapse of bits of the BH into its center, ie the BH gains mass gradually throo accretion & then loses mass via intermittent collapse.(Ranzan-Collapse). This annihilaton/collapse must be very violent. But i dont have any idea of how RC might result in a big bubble of slowly moving (500 kmps) CT, or why south to north. Still thinking.
Ok i have it. The centrifuging of aether by Earth's spin creates an aether inflow at the Equator, & this forces an aether outflow axially at both poles. Lets say that the inflow & outflows are about 30 kmps. The southerly outflow at the southern pole is less than the 500 kmps south to north background galactic aetherwind, hencely it merely reduces the wind to 470 kmps. Plus there is a gravitational aether inflow of 11.2 kmps at all points on Earth, which takes that 470 kmps to 481.2 kmps, at the south pole. The aether outflow at the south pole is axial with Earth's spin-axis, but the background aetherwind is at say 20 deg to Earth's spin-axis. Therefore some locations on Earth near say latitude 45 deg south (eg Adelaide) will enter & exit the outflow zone twice each day. These locations will feel a change in windspeed (ie a turbulence) of about 30 kmps during each entry & exit, ie 4 times per day. That same turbulence will make its way north at the speed of the aetherwind (500 kmps), & will be felt at some locations in the northern hemisphere (eg London). The turbulence need not be turbulent, Adelaide will feel a pseudo-turbulence as it cross the windshear zone of the southern outflow. The outflow itself can be steady, but observers crossing throo the shearzone will feel a change (ie a turbulence)(a pseudo-turbulence).
Near the northern outflow places like London get a double whammy, they will pass into then throo & then out of the "shadow" of the southern outflow plus the northern outflow, potentially passing throo 8 lots of windshear per day.
The Sun must too have a similar centrifuging of aether & a similar pseudo-turbulence at some latitudes in the southern hemisphere & in the northern hemisphere, the turbulence passing south to north at 500 kmps . At the Sun the gravitational aether inflow is 617 kmps (ie the same as the escape velocity)(as per Earth), the background aether wind is 500 kmps (as per Earth), & the centrifugal aether outflow at the south pole is say 300 kmps, giving a nett south to north wind of 817 kmps.
The important thing at the Sun is that the equatorial inflow must veer throo 90 deg to exit near the Sun's poles. The acceleration of the veering must try to drag liquid metallic hydrogen away from the center of the Sun, giving a change in g at a great depth inside the Sun at latitudes not far from the equator, eg 17 deg (the ave location of sunspots).
-
don’t know what angle the wind blows, it blows south to north at 500 kmps at 20 deg (or even 23 deg) to Earth's spin-axis, RA 4:30.
"Another reference frame is provided by the Cosmic microwave background. This frame of reference indicates that The Milky Way is moving at around 552 km/s." - Excerpt from Wikipedia on motion (physics).
And the plane of ecliptic, is inclined at around 60 deg in the galactic plane while Milky Way moves at around 552 km/s in the CMB reference frame.
Just a suggestion on what CT could be observing.
-
don’t know what angle the wind blows, it blows south to north at 500 kmps at 20 deg (or even 23 deg) to Earth's spin-axis, RA 4:30.
"Another reference frame is provided by the Cosmic microwave background. This frame of reference indicates that The Milky Way is moving at around 552 km/s." - Excerpt from Wikipedia on motion (physics).
And the plane of ecliptic, is inclined at around 60 deg in the galactic plane while Milky Way moves at around 552 km/s in the CMB reference frame. Just a suggestion on what CT could be observing.
Yes, i think that that CMB kmps is of the same order of kmps but is they say about 90 deg off, because it is probly a measure of the aetherwind in the far cosmos or even further.
-
Nonetheless there are 12 cycles in 130 years which is about 11 years average.
This exactly says how the 11 year solar cycle is a putative figure. If you choose a different time frame in the 24 solar cycles, it would not be the 11 year average.
In a span of ~262 years from 1755 to 2017 that had manifested 24 solar cycles, despite Jupiter-Sun-Saturn had completed 26 half integral cycles (262/10), it had lost 5 quarter cycles (or 2.5 half solar cycle) to a peculiar negation(indicated with yellow arrows in the sunspot graph found in the case study research). This apparently renders the average 11 year solar cycle {262 / (26 - 2.5) =11.15}.
And it illustrated that the solar cycles, were modulated by the barycenter alignments of the Solar System.
-
The only thing i can think of is Ranzan's theory re the annihilation of mass inside BH's. Ranzan says that the annihilation involves an intermittent sudden quick collapse of bits of the BH into its center, ie the BH gains mass gradually throo accretion & then loses mass via intermittent collapse.(
If you consider the UVS concept on the causality of barycenter in the Solar System, you can visualize the gravitational singularity of a BH is merely a barycenter of a star cluster, which is a nonmaterial entity formed by the vortical motion of aether, and it is a singularity formed in the core of its aetheric displaced nested hypersphere structure that is void of aether corpuscles.
Paradoxically, BH is not an extremely dense and massive object as proclaimed with the Einsteinian relativity; BH is an aetheric vortical void of a star system.
In this sense, if a molecule or an atom is somehow placed inside a BH, its annihilation would be a vortical disintegration process that breaks it into its fundamental forms by the tremendous negative pressure of the vortical void. They are then vortically scattered out around the BH radially in the form of elementary particles with its centrifuging of aether.
These are the relevant UVS subtopics if you are interested to explore:
- The UVS inductive resolution on black hole (https://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20galactic%20spheroid%20of%20Cartwheel%20Galaxy.htm#blackhole)
- Nucleosynthesis in the universe (https://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20geometrical%20structure%20of%20an%20atom.htm#nucleosynthesis)
The hypotheses merely were trying to make sense of the empirical observations in the coherentism of the UVS worldview.
-
It was discovered in 5 solar minimum cases (05 Min, 07 Min, 12 Min, 14 Min, and 23 Min indicated with yellow arrows.) of the UVS case study research, they were overrun from manifesting their next alternative solar maxima as anticipated with the Sun-SSB-BJS alignments. [Reference (https://www.uvs-model.com/The%20case%20study%20for%20the%20barycenter%20drivers%20of%20the%20solar%20cycle.pdf)]
Apparently, all these 5 manifested solar minima, have had their next Sun-SSB-BJS alignments peculiarly negated by the conjunctions of BUN, Sun, and BJS from manifesting their anticipated solar maxima, which could have had perturbed the effectiveness of the Sun-SSB-BJS alignments. (Note: BUN - Barycenter of Uranus and Neptune, BJS - Barycenter of Jupiter and Saturn.)
I think I can safely say that the alignment of the significant barycenters of the Solar System, modulates the solar cycle with the occasional barycentric negation. (Note: the mass center of the Sun, is also a significant barycenter.
For those who is new to this thread, you can find the details in the UVS subtopic on:
"The barycenter drivers of the solar cycle (https://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20sunspot.htm#solar_cycle)"
-
See a report on "Solar to river flow and lake level correlations (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/22/solar-to-river-flow-and-lake-level-correlations/)" that illustrates sunspot numbers correlate with the eco system on Earth.
This is an immutable evidence that the eco system of the Earth, significantly correlates with solar climate.
And the observed ~60 year cycle of the Earth's eco system, correlates with the ~60 year synodic cycle of Jupiter and Saturn (https://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20sunspot.htm#sexagenary), which their barycenter completes one full integral cycle around the barycenter of the Solar System.
The significant vortical singularities of the Solar System, or their significant barycenters, dominantly rules the climate changes of the Sun as well as the Earth.
-
From the UVS perspective, if a significant harmonic vortical singularity of the Solar System resonates on the Earth crust, its field effect could cause a peculiar type of dual-core crater (https://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20impact%20crater%20and%20volcano.htm) to form.
-
I was pondering on could solar cycle be dominated by the barycenters of the Solar System, and thus did a case study research on it:
Without having read your paper, I am wondering how the 70 years of the Maunder minimum (where there were extremely few sunspots) could be explained by the motion of the gas giants around the Solar System barycenter.
Did the planets stop orbiting, or were they fairly equally spaced so they all cancelled out?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
-
Without having read your paper, I am wondering how the 70 years of the Maunder minimum (where there were extremely few sunspots) could be explained by the motion of the gas giants around the Solar System barycenter. Did the planets stop orbiting, or were they fairly equally spaced so they all cancelled out?See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
First and foremost, appreciate your effort to explore this unconventional hypothesis.
The link to this paper (https://www.uvs-model.com/54_Cionco_Compagnucci_2012_JASR11050.pdf) shows by using an orbital reference system, the scientists have found that at the epochs of retrograde solar motion, the solar acceleration shows radial impulses (in Sun-barycentre direction) before all the previous events of the known Grand Minima.
I was tasked by Dr. Rosa Hilda Compagnucci (a co-author of the paper) to investigate the barycenter motion of the Solar System that could be driving the retrograde solar motion.
My investigation with an interactive SSB centric chart, shows that the Sun had occasionally swing passed the quasi SSB before it instead of revolving around it, thus rendered the empirically observed retrograde solar motions.
Take note this is physically possible because the quasi SSB, is not the actual barycenter of the Solar System. This peculiar motion of the Sun around the SSB, could be the indication to the catalyst that causes extremely few sunspots during the Grand Minima.
I had made videos of the SSB centric chart showing the observed retrograde solar motion, will organize to upload it to my UVS website, and also post the link in this thread when done.
-
Did the planets stop orbiting, or were they fairly equally spaced so they all cancelled out?
Here is a said video clip of a SSB centric planetarium chart (https://www.uvs-model.com/pictures/MM%20SSB-Sun%201610-1720.avi)simulated between 1610 to 1720. Its a large avi file and could take a while to download.
Observe the solar inertia motion of the Sun at 1632 on how it swings to turn before the SSB instead of revolving around it, this is a rare feat that had also occurred during the Dalton Minimum. And notice during the Maunder Minimum epoch, the barycenter of Uranus and Neptune (not indicated) was mostly revolving outside of the Uranus orbital during the epoch.
This could explain how the 70 years of the Maunder minimum (where there were extremely few sunspots) is modulated by the motion of the gas giants around the Solar System barycenter.
-
Of the 8 or so possible effects causing sunspots etc mentioned in this thread all of them involve gravity & most of them involve the barycenters of the gas giants & most of them involve aether (or aetherwind).
But i dont think that any mentioned here involve electro-magnetic radiation or charge or charge radiation or any other kind of radiation (counting gravity as not being a radiation), either in a primary cause sense or in a secondary cause sense.
And none mentioned photons or neutrinos (dark photons) as being a possible cause.
And none mentioned dark matter or dark energy as being a possible cause (either gravitationally or in other ways).
And none mentioned Einsteinian quadrupolar gravitational waves as being a possible cause (Cahill's faux gravity waves were mentioned)(a turbulence in the aetherwind).
-
Download this simulated SSB centric planetarium video from year 1770 to 1850 (https://www.uvs-model.com/pictures/DM%20SSB-Sun%201770%201850.avi) to observe the solar inertia motion of the Sun at year 1811 on how it swings to turn before the SSB instead of revolving around it. And notice during the Dalton Minimum epoch, the barycenter of Uranus and Neptune (not indicated) was mostly revolving further outside of the Uranus orbital during the epoch, which was intrinsically interacting with the barycenter of Jupiter and Saturn to primarily affect the solar inertia motion.
-
But i dont think that any mentioned here involve electro-magnetic radiation or charge or charge radiation or any other kind of radiation (counting gravity as not being a radiation), either in a primary cause sense or in a secondary cause sense.
The barycentric analyses of the Solar System, were merely looking for the electro-magnetic switches that modulate the solar cycles.
Download this simulated heliocentric planetarium video (https://www.uvs-model.com/pictures/SSB-BJS.avi) to observe the oscillation on how Jupiter and a quasi barycenter of the Solar System (BSS) periodically race against each other around the Sun with relative prograde and retrograde motions in the heliocentric coordinate system.
This observation is reasoned enough to believe the barycenters of the gas giants, could also be doing such a feat to manifest the 22 year magnetic solar cycle. My hunch was, the gas giant barycenters could cause the periodical relative prograde and retrograde motions of the photosphere and a thermocline segregated layer just below it, thus effecting the periodical magnetic pole switch of the dual-core sunspots as well as the periodical flipping of Sun's magnetic pole.
However, the SkyMarvels team cited the necessary programming to hunt the suspected barycentric switches would be a monstrous job, and still has not helped to mark the barycenters of the gas giants for aiding the visual analyses.
-
The atmospheric climate change on Earth as a result of its precession effect with widened polar vortex pair caused by the orbital forcing of the Solar System objects, could manifest discernable warm climate in the high pressure system of one hemisphere during its summer, and simultaneously manifest discernable cold climate in the lower pressure system of the other hemisphere during its antipodal winter.
Seriously, the old school climate science needs to be overhauled.
-
The atmospheric climate change on Earth as a result of its precession effect with widened polar vortex pair caused by the orbital forcing of the Solar System objects, could manifest discernable warm climate in the high pressure system of one hemisphere during its summer, and simultaneously manifest discernable cold climate in the lower pressure system of the other hemisphere during its antipodal winter.
Seriously, the old school climate science needs to be overhauled.
Yes & we should reduce carbondioxide & methane emissions. And shrink population.
-
Yes & we should reduce carbondioxide & methane emissions. And shrink population.
I beg to differ; the anthropogenic global warming is a cult science.
-
Yes & we should reduce carbondioxide & methane emissions. And shrink population.
I beg to differ; the anthropogenic global warming is a cult science.
That is not the question, the question is whether the science might be correct, & the answer is that we must assume that it is correct. There is no planet B.
-
Yes & we should reduce carbondioxide & methane emissions. And shrink population.
I beg to differ; the anthropogenic global warming is a cult science.
That is not the question, the question is whether the science might be correct, & the answer is that we must assume that it is correct. There is no planet B.
It is a fact that human caused carbon dioxide, has miniscule effects on naturally caused climate change. And even the naturally caused carbon dioxide, which is much more than 100 times the human caused carbon dioxide, its climatic effect is as little as 10 times lesser than the more potent naturally occurring greenhouse gas, which is water vapor.
When it is a fact that it is incorrect, we must not assume that it is correct with the preconceived consequences.
-
Yes & we should reduce carbondioxide & methane emissions. And shrink population.
I beg to differ; the anthropogenic global warming is a cult science.
That is not the question, the question is whether the science might be correct, & the answer is that we must assume that it is correct. There is no planet B.
It is a fact that human caused carbon dioxide, has miniscule effects on naturally caused climate change. And even the naturally caused carbon dioxide, which is much more than 100 times the human caused carbon dioxide, its climatic effect is as little as 10 times lesser than the more potent naturally occurring greenhouse gas, which is water vapor.
When it is a fact that it is incorrect, we must not assume that it is correct with the preconceived consequences.
Rubbish. U dont seem to understand simple logic. It is a fact that it might be a fact. We cant take that chance.
-
Rubbish. U dont seem to understand simple logic. It is a fact that it might be a fact. We cant take that chance.
Climate change is a reality, and since time immemorial, it has had detrimental effects on humanity.
Despite the concerns of anthropogenic global warming are very humane, and the intentions are absolutely good, they were fallaciously extrapolated from a cult science.
Barking on the wrong tree won't really solve the real problem. Not to mention after embarking on the wrong course of actions, and thus bankrupted the trust and resources of the people, as a whole we would be left with little to be able deal with the real problems of climate change.
-
Rubbish. U dont seem to understand simple logic. It is a fact that it might be a fact. We cant take that chance.
Climate change is a reality, and since time immemorial, it has had detrimental effects on humanity.
Despite the concerns of anthropogenic global warming are very humane, and the intentions are absolutely good, they were fallaciously extrapolated from a cult science.
Barking on the wrong tree won't really solve the real problem. Not to mention after embarking on the wrong course of actions, and thus bankrupted the trust and resources of the people, as a whole we would be left with little to be able deal with the real problems of climate change.
Every proposed action is worthy on its own merits, even if there is no ACC. And every proposed action is economic on its own merits, even if zero ACC.
-
Every proposed action is worthy on its own merits, even if there is no ACC. And every proposed action is economic on its own merits, even if zero ACC.
Natural climate change will recur, and thus there could be wide scale suffering, especially so after being misled by the ACC.
As an example, the Great Leap Forward of the Chinese Communist despite has had all the good intentions with merits for everything it proposed, it was a large scale detriment for its populace, which caused the demise of tens of millions of its subjects who were misled.
-
Every proposed action is worthy on its own merits, even if there is no ACC. And every proposed action is economic on its own merits, even if zero ACC.
Natural climate change will recur, and thus there could be wide scale suffering, especially so after being misled by the ACC.
As an example, the Great Leap Forward of the Chinese Communist despite has had all the good intentions with merits for everything it proposed, it was a large scale detriment for its populace, which caused the demise of tens of millions of its subjects who were misled.
Yes, & likewise the anti ACC has good intentions but it could cause the demise of everyone remaining after the demise of the GLF.
-
Rubbish. U dont seem to understand simple logic. It is a fact that it might be a fact. We cant take that chance.
Face the fact on Anthropogenic Global Warming is a cult science:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
-
Rubbish. U dont seem to understand simple logic. It is a fact that it might be a fact. We cant take that chance.
Face the fact on Anthropogenic Global Warming is a cult science:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
U keep missing the point. The point is that AGW might be true. We cant risk it. Immediate strong action is needed.
-
U keep missing the point. The point is that AGW might be true. We cant risk it. Immediate strong action is needed.
You still didn't get it. Climate change is a reality, and could have its large scale detrimental effects. For example, humanity could suffer massive corp failure instead of coastal floodings. Pouring resources into the wrong course of actions with the cult beliefs would be disastrous.
The AGW fear on the melting of the polar ice caps is a fallacy. In actuality the precession of the equinox is causing graciers to retreat at one side of a polar ice cap, and at the same time grow on the other side.
The polar ice caps are shifting with the orbital forcing; polar ice caps are not melting like what the AGW think tanks had incorrectly asserted.
https://www.iceagenow.info/category/glaciers-are-growing-around-the-world/
-
In actuality the precession of the equinox is causing glaciers to retreat at one side of a polar ice cap, and at the same time grow on the other side.
The Earth rotates every 24 hours, so the Sunlight falling on one side of the polar icecap is basically the same as what fell on the other side 12 hours ago (and will fall again on the other side in another 12 hours).
This rotisserie effect means that glaciers on both sides of a polar icecap will be experiencing the same solar heating effect, and will have the same impact on their glaciers.
Precession of the Earth's axis occurs on a timescale of thousands of years, while human production of CO2 and CH4 has changed dramatically on a timescale smaller than 100 years.
-
Precession of the Earth's axis occurs on a timescale of thousands of years, while human production of CO2 and CH4 has changed dramatically on a timescale smaller than 100 years.
What you mentioned as above is truth. The winter month of a hemisphere, would take a much longer period to gradually become a summer month over a ~13,000 year period .
Nevertheless, a slight shift of the polar caps caused by the axial precession effect over a relatively short period of time, say in 100 years, would be sufficient to cause the glaciers at one side of the meandering ice cap to significantly retreat, while concurrently advance on another side.
-
I believe at this juncture, the UVS topic on "The paradoxical effect of nature (https://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20paradoxical%20effect.htm)" is called for.
The section that elaborates on the inductive resolutions of the UVS research, would be worth a thorough second reading.
-
From the UVS perspective, the photosphere on both hemispheres of the Sun subjected to its rotation, becomes a forced vortex pair.
The driving force for the solar polar vortex pair could come from the Sun revolving around the Galactic Center in a spiral arm of the galactic vortex, and this effect transforms the forced vortex pair into a stable and long-lived free vortex pair in the photosphere at the two polar regions that cyclonically spins around the polar axis.
The extremely large and stable polar vortex pair of the Sun, renders the polar caps phenomenon as long-lived corona holes, where coronal temperature and atmospheric density are suddenly dropped in the low pressure systems of the vortical voids of their vortex columns.
The vortically manifested vortex column on a surface of the Sun is a depressed void area, whereby the usual presence of plasmatic viscous matter required for the thermal convection is vortically displaced.
The vortical column effect thus also renders the sunspot's inert dark center phenomenon; the vortical void limits convection and therefore the umbra region is much cooler and less illuminated than the surrounding.
A sunspot is merely a harmonica manifestation of its solar polar vortex in its jet stream.
https://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20sunspot.htm#Solarpolarvortex
-
When the polar vortex pair of the Sun is intensified internally in the Solar System by the barycentric motions of the gas giants, its solar jet streams are thus intensified to manifest increased number of sunspot in clusters, this renders the sunspot cluster phenomenon.
This mechanism is similar to how the atmospheric polar vortex pair of Jupiter, impels its jet streams that in turn manifest and impel its satellite vortices.
See the UVS topic on "Vortices of Jupiter (https://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20vortices%20of%20Jupiter.htm)" for its comparative analysis.