[Paradigmer (OP)]

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 to form.

[evan_au]

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

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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 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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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 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.

[mad aetherist]

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).

[Paradigmer (OP)]

Download this simulated SSB centric planetarium video from year 1770 to 1850 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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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 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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

[mad aetherist]

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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

Yes & we should reduce carbondioxide & methane emissions. And shrink population.

I beg to differ; the anthropogenic global warming is a cult science.

[mad aetherist]

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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

[mad aetherist]

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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

[mad aetherist]

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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

[mad aetherist]

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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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

[mad aetherist]

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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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/