Jump to content

theartist

Member
  • Content Count

    511
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    51

theartist last won the day on January 30

theartist had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

154 Excellent

About theartist

  • Rank
    Extreme flare

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA
  • Interests
    Many and varied, all connected to why we are here.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,042 profile views
  1. Yep, sorry about that. I performed the above task using GOES 15 satellite data (which only goes back to 2011), and here are the results: In the above table, "SEM Trigger Signal 1" is the trigger signal described in the original post to this thread. "SEM Trigger Signal 2" is simply any abnormal rise in EPEAD Protons, those possessing higher energy than the lowest level of "pB(>1 MeV)c".
  2. Well, hold on, maybe one does not need to go back that far back to see any possible trigger signals. I say this after looking at this month of data you pulled. (Incidentally, this is the first time I've closely looked at this month of data, and yet, again, my mind is somewhat blown!) Look at April May 14: do you see that dramatic plunge in the EPEAD electrons in conjunction with a sharp rise in specifically the 'He-1' Magnetometer signal. Based on my limited experience in looking at this type of GOES data (as I said elsewhere, I just somewhat casually stumbled upon the trigger signal I describe in the original post to this thread), those huge spikes in the He-1 Magnetometer are out-of-the-ordinary. So then, was there any abnormal earthquake response to that rather dramatic whamo-whipsaw in the He-1 Magnetometer? Maybe...YES! On April May 14: a 7.5 in New Britain Region, P.N.G.! Nonetheless, the 8.0 did not occur until 12 days later. But possibly the huge seismic stress-release from the 7.5 quake had something to do with that?
  3. Yes. If anyone is interested in doing the hard science, before even to start looking more deeply as to the reasons why any trigger signals may be occurring (due to planetary positions, the Russell-McPherson effect, etc.), they should start from the beginning to objectively determine if any correlation exists beyond coincidence. To convince/assure there is no cherry-picking of data, let's pull up readily confirmed data sources. Here is a list of worldwide earthquakes over the past 10 years taken from the wikipedia article titled, List of earthquakes in 2019: Firstly, notice in the above data that there does not seem to be any significant trend in big earthquakes between solar minimum and solar maximum. (Do we all agree on that point?) So then, to those that want to participate in an open (objective) 'science' project, I suggest to first start with the top row (i.e., quakes 8.0-9.9) and see how often any 'trigger signal correlations' (whatever they may be) show up in the SEM data.
  4. Rather, the specific SEM signal mentioned in the original topic was a "dramatic plunge in the EPEAD Electrons [to values <10^1 e/(cm^2 s sr)] in conjunction with a sharp rise in the 'He-1' Magnetometer signal (to values >= ~100nT)." So here is a list of each of those criteria, happening in conjunction with each other, mentioned in the original post to this topic: a dramatic plunge in the EPEAD electrons; EPEAD electrons falling to values <10^1 e/(cm^2 s sr); a sharp rise in specifically the 'He-1' Magnetometer signal; 'He-1' Magnetometer (specifically) signal approaching/exceeding ~100nT. However, possibly there are even less discriminatory criteria in the SEM signals associated with massive earthquakes, as you suggest.
  5. "Mercury coming between The Sun and Venus" is what is referred to as a Heliocentric Conjunction. When that happens and Mercury is on the same side as Venus, it is an Inferior Conjunction. A Superior Conjunction is when they are in alignment with, but on opposite sides of, the sun. The Mercury/Venus Inferior Conjunction does not happen until February 10. Does your simulator indicate that, or not? If not, then it has major errors, and should not be used for serious work.
  6. Except there was a slight problem with your prediction. When asked to clarify the reasoning, you stated the following: There currently is no Venus/Mercury Heliocentric Conjunction going on. So what is this new method of 'alignment' you are referring to?🤔
  7. You may already know there is a pretty good proportional relationship between the sunspot counts and the F10.7cm flux (per discussion in this comment). But I think you may be asking the more interesting questions: "What is the physics going on by which electromagnetic (EM) characteristics and EM interaction of the planetary bodies can be affecting sunspots (and F10.7cm flux)"? "Are those same types of EM interrelationships somehow possibly influencing geological perturbations, like quakes and volcanoes, here on earth"? But it can affect radio communications. Yes. Although the cyclical expenditure of solar energy over the Schwabe cycle does not change much, there is a higher proportion of the shorter wavelength energy at solar maximum. Thanks! However, notice the Smoothed Maximum ISN of SC8 was 245, but only 116 for SC24. There are indeed similarities between SC9 and SC25, but differences in temporal phasing placement of the Jupiter/Saturn inferior conjunction and the Jupiter/Uranus inferior conjunction, and other positioning differences like maybe even Pluto's placement, will factor into differences in overall expression of sunspot peak activity between the two cycles. Possibly without realizing it, you may be attempting a different explanation of how the variance in the Solar Inertial Moment (SIM) and Barycenter analysis factors into cycle strength, although the SIM and Barycenter analysis typically is trying to conclude resultant tidal changes in the sun's positioning, possibly within its own atmosphere, is what is at play. What we know is that movement of electrically charged solar plasma induces magnetic fields, and I contend perturbations in the Quality Factor of the heliosphere EM cavity (due to changing planetary positions) are going to have effects on the expression of those magnetic fields.
  8. At this juncture, I'm not trying to forecast where spots will appear latitudinally. We are still in the solar minimum transition phase, in which the cycles will overlap; higher latitude spots will generally have next-cycle (i.e. SC25) polarity, while spots closer to the equator may possess polarity from either cycle, though will generally possess previous-cycle polarity.
  9. Thanks. That pore I pointed out earlier in this thread is not the spot that popped up today which is showing some nice magnetic intensity. True, it may die down long before it exits the west limb. However, we are now moving solidly into a Mars/Venus Superior Conjunction, while there still exists a bit of a long-range Neptune/Earth/Venus Conjunct. Mercury is now swinging around behind the east limb, so you may wish to watch the high latitude active region that's been in the STEREO-A imagery over the past few days. Bottom-line, will we consequently register spots almost daily for the rest of January? If so, the ISN monthly mean would end up >4, the first time that has happened since May of 2019! P.S. Michele, since you are a Pluto fan, we also have Earth roughly in-plane with Saturn and Pluto this coming week. 😊 There is more than gravitational tidal effects going on, my friend. For your reading pleasure, from the vaults of olden-times, uncovering secrets of past discoveries: (source of olden-times paper). Enjoy! 😄
  10. From theartist science notebook series(©) (draft notes): Compute Duration of Magnetic Schwabe Cycle from Conjunction Periods of Gas Giants (source of above paper). The total average of whole number periods of gas giant conjunctions is 179.08 yrs, per cell E17 in the following spreadsheet computation: A whole number period of Magnetic Schwabe Cycles (16 cycles) computes the average duration to be 11.19 yrs, per cell C17 in the above spreadsheet computation. If we include planetary sidereal orbits in the total average of whole number periods, we compute a value of 176.20 yrs, per cell E18 in the following spreadsheet computation: A whole number period of Magnetic Schwabe Cycles (16 cycles) computes the average duration to be 11.01 yrs, per cell C18 in the above spreadsheet computation. So I ask you kind reader, does not the whole number periods of planetary conjunctions equating to whole number periods of the Magnetic Schwabe Cycle duration present very strong evidence that the latter is intimately interrelated to the former?
  11. From theartist science notebook series(©) (draft notes): Figure 3. 'Sunspot events' in SC9 are annotated in the above ISN time series. (to be continued)
  12. There are no geological faults near Hutchison, KS pertaining to the New Madrid.
  13. I hope you can see from the above tables that SC25 alignment is not like SC6, primarily in their difference in the positioning of Uranus. There are yet unknown electromagnetic characteristics unique to each planet that may, as shown with Uranus, change depending upon their heliosphere positions, and from their interactions with other planets, and even with their own moons (Jupiter being a prime example). Therefore, starting out, with only limited knowledge on some of these factors, I will proceed to compare primarily with the patterns set up in SC9, because of its similarity in gas giant placement with that of SC25. Over time, as we learn more about the unique behaviors and caveats for certain conditions of the individual planets throughout their position in the heliosphere, will we be able to go back and extrapolate various pattern behavior in past cycles to improve our forecasting for future cycles. The 'Planetary Clocking Thesis' is founded on the fundamental understanding that in the scale of human lifetimes, our star is extremely consistent in the expenditure of its energy. There is only a slight cyclical variation over the 11.x yr Schwabe solar cycle. The vast majority of its energy expenditure is in the form of electromagnetic radiation (being a blackbody radiator), with only a very small percentage of its energy expenditure in the form of mass. Nonetheless, it is the latter that can disproportionately, percentage-wise, impact spaceweather.
  14. Hey Michele, I enjoy your posts. Check out my latest posts on the thread titled, "Solar Cycle 'Rosetta Stone' Has Been Found!?!", where I compare cycles with Uranus in Taurus versus cycles where Uranus is in opposition to Taurus. A key suggestion is that the Uranus/Taurus (Pleiades) conjunct are just coincident to the real cause, which is that Uranus' magnetic orientation favors sunspot formation when it is in the Taurus constellation (particularly if it occurs near the cycle's solar maximum). 🤔 What do you think about that? 😊 According to theartist's 'Planetary Clocking Thesis', changing location and orientation of the 'planetary magnets' are heliosphere perturbations which affect the Quality Factor of the Heliosphere's Electromagnetic Resonation Characteristics.
  15. Solar cycles when Uranus is in direct opposition to Taurus (source of below table data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles ) : Solar Cycle Start (Minimum) Smoothed minimum ISN (start of cycle) Maximum Smoothed maximum ISN Time of Rise (years) Duration (years) Spotless days[10][11][12] Solar Cycle 6, ~1817 1810-08 0.0 1816-05 81 5.8 12.8 Solar Cycle 13, ~1901 1890-03 8.3 1894-01 147 3.8 11.8 782 Solar Cycle 21, ~1985 1976-03 17.8 1979-12 233 3.8 10.5 283 Note that when Uranus is in the constellation Taurus, i.e. possessing magnetic pole orientation 'X' (relative to ecliptic) and it occurs near solar maximum, big cycles have resulted (e.g., SC3, SC10, SC18). Note that when Uranus is in direct opposition to Taurus, i.e. possessing magnetic pole orientation opposite of 'X' (relative to ecliptic) and it occurs near solar maximum, small cycles have resulted (e.g., SC6), but when Uranus is in direct opposition to Taurus and it occurs near close to solar minimum, there is less diminishment effect on the solar cycle's magnitude (e.g., SC13 and SC21).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you also agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.