Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Geo Cosmos

Sunspot numbers and stress are related - there are researches. Why do we not use it in character drafts like "horoscopes"?

Question

I see that sunspot numbers differ it is reated to stress level, so the spot number of any  person who is born on a specific day will be characteristic.

Also there are only a number of similar days in the last 250 years.

Cab we not suppose that the few twin years (with similar spots) may have some inherited hormon-level stress-handling setup as a residue in our present? 

Would it not be natural to try to use those numbers as a character draft (like horoscopes or enneagrams?)

 

let us say Trump is born in 1946  on 17 07 - and his sun spot number is   148

 

  • Laurence Olivier's Henry V opens in the United States nearly 2 years after its release in England. It is the first Shakespeare film in color, and critics hail it as the finest film of a Shakespeare play ever made.

 

 

Similar stress level year (high number means low stress)

 

Ancestral Impact 1769    

 

 

Of course no  newspaper is interested in this.  Does anyone think it would be worth while to look up more such coincidences? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Sunspot numbers only relate to the Sun itself and it's activity, it has nothing to do with stres level on humans. A higher sunspot number only indicates a higher level of active regions on the Earth facing solar side and it follows a pattern that's called the Solar Cycle with a span of about 11 years where you have years with a very low sunspot number (and the sun is in solar minimum with less to no activity) and rises as the solar cycle progresses to peak and eventually decline again to a new solar minimum. Nothing more and nothing less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

But there are lots of studies showing correlations statistically with stress and sun-magnetism. Here is a link. I am a Ph D student so I think I do know what can be part of a scientific discourse. I understand that  you stick to a strict astro-phiysical cadre , so you reject any theories (even if maybe true) that try to introduce other aspects. So  I will not return with this just for this  last time:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3063695/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Regarding to your link... In the past (pre 90's) there where no satellites that measured the X-ray of the Sun and there where only Sunspot Regions to get an idea of either their complexity and solar activity. So the only interpretation for such a correlation for a long timeframe are sunspot regions (those where already counted since early years), but then you encounter a lot of difficulties because sunspots don't tell the whole story because you don't know if that sunspot region did cause a coronal mass ejection and whether that CME had impact on Earth. So that's a lot of noise in the data that can't be filtered out and you can only make an assumption that there would be an effect. Using data from geomagnetic storms can pinpoint to those active periods in which the Earth is influenced by a coronal hole or coronal mass ejection and see if during those periods there are effects on human beings. 

So the sunspot regions itself don't have an influence on us, but it's rather the complex geomagnetic storms coming from coronal mass ejections that could have an effect on human beings. But science data is still limited to the last few decades and is too narrow to get the full impact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I quote from that link: To investigate this, we compared cycles in monthly sunspot and solar flux numbers between 1983–2003 with monthly population rates/1000 of screening-discovered, Pap smear–defined, cervical epithelial infections, pre-cancer, and cancer, as well as monthly circadian means and amplitudes of six physiologic functions of a healthy man obtained five times per day by self-measurements over the identical 21-year span.  /.../ During these 21 years, 1,182,421 smears were processed, read, and reported by the same expert technical staff, and each abnormal smear was reviewed by one of us, a pathologist and laboratory director (M.E.B.)./.../ 

 

Sunspot data were taken from the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC) of the Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels, Belgium (SIDC-team, 2003). The SIDC calculates and broadcasts the sunspot index, called the International Sunspot Number, for each day, month, and year. The sunspot number represents the number of observed sunspots and sunspot groups on the solar surface and is computed according to the Wolf Sunspot Number Formula: R = k (10g + s), where g is the number of sunspot groups (regions), s is the total number of individual spots in all the groups, and k is a scaling factor that corrects for visual conditions at various observatories.

 

Solar flux data were taken from the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) in Boulder, Colorado, USA, with radio telescopes at Ottawa (1947–1991) and Penticton (1991–present), British Columbia, Canada. Daily solar flux density at 2800 mHz is measured and reported at approximately 1700 UT in solar flux units. One solar flux unit is equivalent to 104 jansky (10−22 W/m2·Hz). Adjusted values, corrected for variations resulting from the eccentric orbit of Earth around the Sun, were used in the present study (NOAA, 2003). /.../Cosinor analysis can also be used to fit more than one period in a concomitant multi-component analysis to better detect separate periodicities or better characterize patterns in the data (Ayala et al., 1990; Fernández et al., 2009). Over the 21-year observation span, the periods of the best-fitting cosines that approximate the average lengths for oscillations in the sunspot and solar flux data were 10.0 and 5.75 years. Since our hypothesis was that similar oscillations in the pathophysiologic data might exist, a 10-year (87,660 h) period was invariably fit to each data series./.../

 

The reconstructed curves shown in Fig. 2 demonstrate the relative timing and amplitudes of the 10-year and 5.75-year periodicities in solar flux and sunspot numbers. No annual rhythm exists. Likewise, Fig. 2displays the complex multi-component time structure of HPV infection, cervical epithelial carcinoma and dysplasia (pre-cancer), as well as one bacterial (Chlamydia) and one fungal (Actinomyces) cervical epithelial infection. This depiction of the relative amplitudes and phases of these 1-, 5.75-, and 10-year components also demonstrates that the nonphotic 10-year rhythm is often at least as prominent as the photic annual one, for many of the measured endpoints./.../

 All six cervical epithelial abnormalities peak near, or from several months to some three years following, the solar maxima. The circadian means of oral temperature, respiration, and diastolic BP peak during the first quarter following the solar maxima, while systolic BP peaks during the second quarter. Pulse peaks in the quarter immediately preceding the 10-year solar maxima, which implies that its trough occurs two quarters later when systolic BP is highest./.../Population biologists have reported other 10–12 year rhythms, including approximately 10-year rhythms in birth and death statistics (Halberg et al., 2000). Physiologic measurements such as heart rate, BP, temperature, and respiration have documented various low-frequency temporal patterns (Maruta et al.,1987; Sothern et al., 1993; Weydahl et al., 2002; Cornélissen et al., 2010a). Multi-year rhythms in the waxing and waning of infectious epidemics are the rule rather than the exception (Davis and Lowell, 2006)./.../ 

Sunspot patterns affect weather patterns, and weather has behavioral, biological, and medical effects. Weather patterns and resulting patterns of prevailing global winds and currents also affect the global spread of many microorganisms. It is conceivable that solar storm–induced weather cycles could cyclically impact both human physiology and the likelihood of human infection, such as approximately 11-year Schwabe cycle–associated influenza pandemics (Hayes, 2010).

Increased solar fluency that accompanies sunspot peaks increases light exposure of Earth's population of living organisms. Light, per se, has behavorial, endocrinologic, immunologic, and physiologic effects in living things, including human beings. For example, as a population phenomenon, a study of more than 320,000 citizens over a 29-year period found that those born near peaks of solar cycles lived an average of 1.5 years less than those born in non-peak years; the authors concluded that this must involve radiant energy, probably UV light (Lowell and Davis, 2008). It is possible that population light exposure changes could contribute to the physiologic and pathophysiologic rhythms we have observed. Light, for instance, modulates daytime vitamin D levels and nighttime melatonin levels, each of which inversely affects the host-cancer balance (Grant, 2002; Schernhammer and Hankinson, 2005) /.../We make these data freely available to everyone in the hope of contributing to future “data mining” work from multiple disciplines that is beyond our current capabilities. In addition, the entire >4 decade–long (from 1967 to present) original self-measured data series is available online for such scholarly purposes upon request to the second author (R.B.S.) at sothe001@umn.edu.

 

 

I do not say that I can judge these results. I say that this claim of parallelism between sun magnetism and health issues exists and I do say that the methods they use are technically scientific. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So they have data from before the 90s here. They do claim there is a correlation between sickness case numbers  and sun-magnetic activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

There is data before the 90's (flare data since 1976), but less detailled than it is now and the correlation between both is still with a big margin. But still, the cause can be due to many factors including UV radiation and effects of the life at Earth itself. It would be more interesting to see a study that relates to very strong solar events and see if that had an impact, because that study only suggest there could be some kind of influence. The opposite could be studied as well because when solar activity is very low, there is an increase in cosmic rays and that can also bring an influence on the Earth's environment and maybe also on humans. 

If there really was a big influence that sunspot regions where a cause, then there would be spikes visible in the data during periods of intense solar flares, intense radiation storms and during strong geomagnetic events (for example radiation events of October 2003, November 2001, October 1989, March 1991, or very strong geomagnetic storms of September 1941, December 1960, March 1989, or very strong flare events like October 2003, August 1989, April 2001, July 1978). Unfortunately I don't see that in the study, so that's why I don't believe sunspot regions (on what the sunspot number is based on) are a cause of effect on Earth. With that said, I did not say that the Sun itself doesn't have an effect on Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Dear Sander, I do see your point now and I believe it is logical and acceptable. Except if intense solar flares and intense radiation storms  indeed do not have statistical health data parallels because no one tried to pinpoint tis issue as yet. The artiscle did not even try to deal with these . they only focused on the spot number issue. What if the their argument: that high spot numbers do produce more amount of light /around the spots/ and that produces more Vitamin D and that creates these immunity or lack of immunity hospitalization statistics in the mentioned illnesses. 

So I understand it would be interesting to look up any special health events (because other fields are difficult to  see on a statistical plane) on these particular spike months you mention- but in the article I cited above they simply do not focus on these. So the lack of data about spike correlations  can not be a base for such a final  judgment. Okay magnetic spikes do not have a direct effect (let us suppose this, but maybe you are  the first one to raise this issue and it was as yet simply never   envisioned.)

But you probably do say that the statistical correlations of such a longterm research with so many (hundred thousands of people) data all pointing to some kind of parallelism with spot-numbers - this cannot be shrugged off just because they forgot about spikes. They do not say anywhere that their claim is that "magnetism" has some health impact. And maybe you are right in supposing it has not. They do specifically claim that a correlation can be shown only with spot numbers (maybe focusing on some sun magnetic data side effects - not geomagnetic ones).  But its cause can be a D vitamin hormonal effect - regardless of magnetic spikes - maybe humans have developed some defense against magnetic impacts but some other element (like hormonal differences due to light  -  simply the amount of   light) does have an effect on living beings still.

 

I thank you for responding in depth and with a benevolent attitude.  Generally my experience in other community places  on the net is that I get more abrasive comments - as if I would preach some inadmissible mystical horoscope-like correlations. I do not have the knowledge to form any  positive opinion. I found this large data based article  and I am seriously  interested. (I found some letters about it in my family from the 1920s years when Chizhevsky and others first tried to look up sunspot cycles and historical events correlations but worked with less sophisticated data than we have today. Then they decided negatively - Karl Mannheim, a UNESCO leader and acclaimed sociologist then formulating a theory about generations /who was my grand-uncle/ reached the conclusion that the data then were not decisive. The question did arise because human generations do have an average 22 year cycle /and even today this is mentioned in the expert texts - Strauss-Howe, 1991 - but without mentioning it  could be a hint to some solar-maculae cycles/. So my interest is partly due to this family tradition  which has led me to  working on my History Ph D and still I am studying this field.   So for me the negative opinions and the positive ones are equally important. 

 

But your very carefully formulated and acceptable argument is not yet conclusive about the data I mentioned - it is very strongly suggesting these researches might be faulty (if magnetic spikes do not have any parallels - although maybe no one has done any research on that  - than why would spot numbers,  you say - But sorry,  this is not a 100% definitive rebuke to the original spot-related claims as yet.)  Could you please return to the question ? - There are details for instance I can not understand  at all. Their  average year-number, something "5,75" years is mentioned several times. Do experts have such a number when dealing with the cycles? Maybe the Downward Years from Maximal till Minimal   years? (To me it seems closer to 7 years but I am not an expert. I do not understand this number - although they do claim that many research data show that some illnesses have this cycle of years and they find this in the sunspot  data too.)

 

Edited by Geo Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

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.