Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
theartist

Solar Cycle 'Rosetta Stone' Has Been Found!?!

Recommended Posts

The Solar Cycle 'Rosetta Stone', by 'theartist'

Today, 'theartist' announces he may have found the 'Rosetta Stone' that will greatly help in deciphering the temporal expression of solar activity through the solar cycle, which (according to his thesis) partially results from changes in planetary positions as they affect the Electromagnetic Quality Factor of the Heliosphere Resonation Cavity.  

Since our last episode'theartist' diligently proceeded to flesh out his 'Planetary Clocking Thesis', employing pattern recognition techniques. The recent results are in: "This could be it!", he exclaimed. He was referring to Solar Cycle 9, and in particular, the striking similarity in Solar Cycle 9's key planetary positioning attributes with that of the upcoming Solar Cycle 25; (see Figure 1 below). 

"Only time will tell," he said, "but now we have something quite solid to work with in fleshing out the granularity of our Forecast for Solar Cycle 25."

"If found to be true, our 'Planetary Clocking Thesis' will forever change understanding of the magnetic expression of solar cycle activity, and be fundamental input to future solar cycle forecasts", he said.

spacer.pngspacer.png

Figure 1. The 'Rosetta Stone' planetary setup; at the end of SC24 and coming out of SC8, there is observed similitude of Alpha (𝞪) J-S in the constellation Sagittarius with precessed Uranus and Neptune. 

(At this time, theartist wishes to thank those dedicated heliophysicists that have gone beforehand in preparation of the historical sunspot record.)

(copyright © by 'theartist', all rights reserved)

(to be continued)

Edited by theartist
spell-check
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting concept. For one it would make much sense to me that the entirety of the solar system dances together. Each part has consequential effects on the rest of the parts. The sun is the master point.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stream of conciousness thoughts:  We are going to find out within this first year, at least to some degree, how credible the 'Planetary Clocking Thesis' (PCT) is. The following prediction/thoughts are based on the PCT tenets (which are yet to be proven out). 

  • These forecast ideas are based on careful examination of the differences between SC9 and SC25, and evaluation of other cyclical patterns (along with additional research and study).
  • I think SC25 is going to confound folks.  
  • SC25 should start out slow (because of the Jupiter/Saturn inferior conjunction that needs to first be cleared), and then pick up strength toward the end of it. The latter cycle strength will end up confirming we are not going into a Maunder Minimum, and that we are coming out of the Gleissberg Minimum Dip. 
  • The Gleissberg Minimum Dip was primarily due to the phasing (timing occurrence) of the Jupiter/Saturn inferior conjunction, along with Pluto approaching the ecliptic, while the Uranus and Neptune position were (approximately) in the same quadrant as during the Maunder Minimum ~358 years ago, and during SC9 ~176 years ago (but Pluto was well below the ecliptic in the latter).
  • In SC25, Pluto is not in as 'effective position' (by effective I mean conducive to producing sunspots) as it was in SC9.
  • By the start of SC9, Jupiter had already cleared Saturn. (The Jupiter/Saturn inferior conjunction occurs approximately every 20 years.  It generally is anti-corollary to sunspot effectiveness.)
  • Uranus is further separated away from Neptune in SC25.  That will somewhat help in getting the cycle going, but then Jupiter will eventually have to clear Uranus well into the cycle, whereas, Jupiter relatively quickly cleared Uranus in SC9.  (In general, the Jupiter/Uranus inferior conjunction is anti-corollary to sunspot effectiveness; whereas, the Jupiter/Uranus superior heliocentric conjunction is quite effective.)

That is enough for now. There is a lot to this, and it can be quite exhausting.

(copyright © by 'theartist', all rights reserved)

(to be continued)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, theartist said:

he may have found the 'Rosetta Stone' that will greatly help in deciphering the temporal expression of solar activity through the solar cycle, which (according to his thesis) partially results from changes in planetary positions as they affect the Electromagnetic Quality Factor of the Heliosphere Resonation Cavity.  

Let me now clarify what I mean by "partially" in the above statement.  According to the 'Planetary Clocking Thesis', there are three main things that underlie a solar cycle's magnetic activity:

  1. Temporal Phasing of the Sun's Cyclical Expenditure of Energy.
  2. Temporal Location of the Solar Dynamo's Longitudinal Precession of Magnetic Activity.
  3. Temporal changes/perturbations in the Electromagnetic Quality Factor of the Heliosphere Resonating Cavity.

Where these three things lie temporally, relative to each other, determines the 'strength' of a cycle's sunspot activity.

(copyright © by 'theartist', all rights reserved)

(to be continued)

Edited by theartist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From theartist science notebook series(©):

Evaluation of gas-giants' spatial coherence between current and ~178yrs ago.   

Hypothesis: Current Jupiter/Saturn positioning is comparable to mid-1841.

spacer.pngspacer.png

spacer.png

Figure 2. Planetary spatial coherence of Jupiter/Saturn is mid-1841 <<>> Jan 2020, which was two years before the Solar Minimum Nadir of the SC8/SC9 transition.

Edited by theartist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2020 at 9:08 AM, theartist said:

Temporal Location of the Solar Dynamo's Longitudinal Precession of Magnetic Activity.

Wow, this is crazy. I meant to write "Latitudinal Precession", for I was thinking Latitudinal (i.e, the rush to the poles, the equator-ward movement as seen in the Butterfly Diagram, etc.) and I went back and proofread my post multiple times, and yet, I just discovered I wrote "Longitude" instead of "Latitude". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating and an interesting theory.

AA Hady had previously "matched" the rise/amplitute of SC 22,23 and 24 to SC 3,4 and 5 leading into the Dalton Minimum speculating that SC25 would follow the trend of SC6. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257736762_Deep_solar_minimum_and_global_climate_changes

If you have not already, could you please look at the alignments at that time?  

I found this paper had the best illustration of the Gleissberg, De Vries, Eddy and others as an introduction to the cycles for us newbies.

http://euanmearns.com/periodicities-in-solar-variability-and-climate-change-a-simple-model/

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgra.50210

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From theartist science notebook series(©):

Consideration of gas giant magnetic characteristics: Uranus   

Uranus: 84 Earth-yr orbit, 17-hr rotation, "one of just two planets that rotate in the opposite direction than most of the planets (Venus is the other one), from east to west"; "rotates at a nearly 90-degree angle from the plane of its orbit. This unique tilt makes Uranus appear to spin on its side, orbiting the Sun like a rolling ball."; "...the only planet whose equator is nearly at a right angle to its orbit, with a tilt of 97.77 degrees."; "For nearly a quarter of each Uranian year, the Sun shines directly over each pole, plunging the other half of the planet into a 21-year-long, dark winter."; "exhibits dynamic clouds as it approaches equinox, including rapidly changing bright features."

Uranus Magnetosphere

"Uranus has an unusual, irregularly shaped magnetosphere. Magnetic fields are typically in alignment with a planet's rotation, but Uranus' magnetic field is tipped over: the magnetic axis is tilted nearly 60 degrees from the planet's axis of rotation, and is also offset from the center of the planet by one-third of the planet's radius.

Auroras on Uranus are not in line with the poles (like they are on Earth, Jupiter and Saturn) due to the lopsided magnetic field.

The magnetosphere tail behind Uranus opposite the Sun extends into space for millions of miles. Its magnetic field lines are twisted by Uranus’ sideways rotation into a long corkscrew shape." 

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/uranus/in-depth/

Quick-look effects of Uranus planetary positioning (ignoring other potential caveats):

Edited by theartist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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).

Edited by theartist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2020 at 1:29 AM, Capricopia said:

speculating that SC25 would follow the trend of SC6

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.

Edited by theartist
spelling
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From theartist science notebook series(©) (draft notes):

spacer.png

Figure 3. 'Sunspot events' in SC9 are annotated in the above ISN time series.

 

spacer.png

 

(to be continued)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From theartist science notebook series(©) (draft notes):

Compute Duration of Magnetic Schwabe Cycle from Conjunction Periods of Gas Giants

spacer.png

(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:

spacer.png

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:

spacer.png

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?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good job, my feeling is similar that the planetary influences are exactly that.   Is there a short-cut connection between the F10.7 flux and electromagnetic interaction of planetary bodies?  Sunspots seem to be the visual manifestation that we see of solar activity, but the magnetic activity is really what is of interest re. the influence on earth?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi theartist,

Amazing work on this!   Personally find your work inspiring and reminds me of what science can and should be.

A couple of questions /comments on this:

1)  Silso has the cycles broken out into larger Characteristic groups of 8 solar cycles which make a larger characteristic trend.  The first 8 solar cycles presumably had short cycles (yellow), cycles 8 through 15 had long cycles (blue), cycles 16 through 23 had short cycles (yellow), and 24 through 31 will have (if they follow trend) longer then average cycles.

This observed trend exactly supports your theory that SC 9 is similar to SC25 and SC8 is equivalent to SC24.   As they are cycle 1 and 2 of this larger and newest (blue color coded) 8 cycle Characteristic trend.    Really just not enough observed data (would need thousands of years) to have statistical significance though.  Thoughts based on this limited data?

SC25_charac.png

2)  My second question on this is really just an image that pops up into mind from your work.    I tend to see this planetary clocking thesis as having parallels to classical electricity generation here on earth.   With the motion of planets and really the universe as a whole providing the kinetic energy (moving of magnets) from which our favorite and life giving electron (aka sun) partially converts to variances in electromagnetic energy.    So when the motion is slower our electron generates less (longer solar cycles) and when the motion is greater it generates more (faster solar cycles).    Again would love to hear your thoughts on this.


 

1 hour ago, theartist said:

From theartist science notebook series(©) (draft notes):

Compute Duration of Magnetic Schwabe Cycle from Conjunction Periods of Gas Giants

spacer.png

(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:

spacer.png

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:

spacer.png

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?

Hi theartist -

16/2 = 8....
 

Based on your most recent findings this seems to fit well with the characteristic trend (Silso trend classification) of a larger full trend.   8 “positive/south” cycles and 8 “negative/north” cycles.   Flipping each 8 cycles?  Not sure which is longer in duration though - would depend on total universe kinetic energy during the larger 8 cycle trend.

 

so much we don’t know (I admit to stretching logic in this specific thought - really late here -  but not the previous/earlier points in this post). Apologies in advance.

Edited by cosnow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ theartist ... just read an interesting story on Fox News about a vitrified brain being found in one of the bodies found in Pompeii. In that story it is stated that the eruption took place in 79 AD. They have narrowed the time down to between Aug/Oct. Is there any way to see the planetary alignments for back then? Jsorrery doesn't accept 79 AD. It shifts to 1979. Unfortunately the moon phase can not be determined without an exact date. What is very interesting though is that the JG/U 2K tree ring study shows a deep drop in temps at that time.

Was 79 AD a Gleissberg cycle? I found some multi thousand year graphs displaying C14 data which looks like it shows a dip in C14 around that time. Also the JG/U high res 2k graph clearly shows a deep drop in temps at that time. The year 79 AD is the first deep drop after 0. Note that the drop in temps at that point on the graph is short, approximately 15 years in length. That suggest a Gleissberg, imo. A grand minimum is either around 30 or 60 years in length as can be clearly seen elsewhere along the graph. Lastly, can the solar minima around that era be determined? Did Vesuvius erupt during a solar minimum plus a Gleissberg?09_geo_tree_ring_northern_europe_climate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grant said:

good job, my feeling is similar that the planetary influences are exactly that.   Is there a short-cut connection between the F10.7 flux and electromagnetic interaction of planetary bodies?  Sunspots seem to be the visual manifestation that we see of solar activity, but the magnetic activity is really what is of interest re. the influence on earth?

I don’t think F10.7 matters to earth At all  - but I think that UV and infrared irradiance levels matter greatly..  My thought is that UV is both a function of point/level in solar cycle (longer duration = lower UV level, ie less overall energy) and reduced even further at minimum by lack of solar activity/wind allowing O3 to flourish which further shields earth from UV.    This reduction of super high energy reduces the ability of ice to melt and water to evaporate regardless of infrared/heat level..  ie reduces matter from changing state - which requires high energy above all else.   Historically people have always said heat/infrared was the primary driver - but I think UV has a larger role then anyone has previously documented.   
 

Unfortunately, we do not have, and have not had for 10 years, (Source/Sim was decommissioned and was otherwise failing for the last 10 years) a way to accurately measure irradiance at different spectrums to prove this (crazy that we don’t..)..  which also means no way to accurately measure earths energy balance during that time period either.   As not all irradiance is equal.   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2020 at 1:03 AM, Grant said:

Is there a short-cut connection between the F10.7 flux and electromagnetic interaction of planetary bodies?  Sunspots seem to be the visual manifestation that we see of solar activity, but the magnetic activity is really what is of interest re. the influence on earth?

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"?

 

On 1/23/2020 at 2:47 AM, cosnow said:

I don’t think F10.7 matters to earth At all

But it can affect radio communications.

On 1/23/2020 at 2:47 AM, cosnow said:

but I think that UV and infrared irradiance levels matter greatly..   ...not all irradiance is equal

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.

On 1/23/2020 at 1:06 AM, cosnow said:

Amazing work on this!   Personally find your work inspiring and reminds me of what science can and should be.

Thanks!

On 1/23/2020 at 1:06 AM, cosnow said:

This observed trend exactly supports your theory that SC 9 is similar to SC25 and SC8 is equivalent to SC24.  

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.

On 1/23/2020 at 1:06 AM, cosnow said:

2)  My second question on this is really just an image that pops up into mind from your work.    I tend to see this planetary clocking thesis as having parallels to classical electricity generation here on earth.   With the motion of planets and really the universe as a whole providing the kinetic energy (moving of magnets) from which our favorite and life giving electron (aka sun) partially converts to variances in electromagnetic energy.    So when the motion is slower our electron generates less (longer solar cycles) and when the motion is greater it generates more (faster solar cycles).    Again would love to hear your thoughts on this.

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.

Edited by theartist
spelling
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.