Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Theory of sunspot prediction and planetary alignment

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Theory of sunspot prediction and planetary alignment

    I read with interest a number of other threads proposing statistical correlation between planetary conjugation cycles and sunspot cycles. The theory behind those correlations is that gravitational tidal forces acting on the surface of the sun causes formation of sun spots and ejection of solar matter. In fact, the relative tidal influence M/(D^3) of the planets on the Sun (by comparison with the Earth's effect on the Sun) is as follows:

    Mercury 0.953
    Venus 2.155
    Earth 1.000
    Mars 0.030
    Jupiter 2.259
    Saturn 0.109
    Uranus 0.002
    Neptune 0.001

    Let's consider the biggest four tidal effects, i.e.

    Mercury 0.953
    Venus 2.155
    Earth 1.000
    Jupiter 2.259

    The tidal effect can go from 0 (ie no sunspots) if Mercury and Venus are in exact antiphase with Earth and Jupiter relative to the sun, through to 6 if all four of these planets are aligned through the axis of the sun. They do not all have to be on the same side of the sun!

    Experiment:

    Based on the known orbital periods of each of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Jupiter, I produced an Excel worksheet showing exactly at which time two or more of these four planets would be aligned axially with the sun. The spreadsheet runs for four thousand years from 1000 BC to 3000 AD. If the alignment order was Sun-Venus-Earth or Venus-Sun-Earth it doesn't matter because the tidal force on the Sun would be the same. I then ran a macro to identify when the alignments had occured to within 5% angular error. The theory below is based on the alignment patterns that the spreadsheet revealed:

    Theory:

    Sun, Venus, and Earth are aligned approximately every 11.2 years (in any order axially through the Sun) with Jupiter in antiphase. At this time there occurs a "minor" sunspot maximum. Relative level = 2+1-2 = 1

    Additionally, Jupiter is aligned with Sun, Venus and Earth every 22.4 years. At that time there occurs a "major" sunspot maximum. Relative level = 2+1+2 = 5

    Additionally, Mercury is aligned with Sun, Venus and Earth every 201.5 years (relative level = 2), and also with Jupiter as well every 403 years (relative level = 6).

    Mercury's gravitational drag on the Sun is in antiphase with the Sun, Venus and Earth between those times, so every 100.75 years we should see a sunspot cycle minimum, where sunspots disappear for about 20 years (relative level = 0) followed 100.75 years later by a minor sunspot cycle peak (relative level = 2), followed 100.75 years later by another minimum (relative level = 0), followed 100.75 years later by a grandaddy of sunspot maxima (relative level = 6).

    Predictions:

    I would be very interested if those who have access to historical data could please test this theory with observed planetary and sunspot data. Here are my predictions:

    a) Every 403 years the sunspot cycle pattern repeats.

    b) The periodicity of alignments of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Jupiter through the axis of the Sun is every 403 years.

    c) 201.5 years following observation of maximum sunspot activity, there is a period of at least 20 years in which no sunspots at all will occur (relative tidal level =0)

    d) 201.5 years following a 20 year period in which no sunspots occurred, there will occur a solar maxima that will not recur for another 403 years.

    e) 2012 will be a year in which the absolute solar maxima will be observed (relative level=6) and it will be the same phenomena that presumably also happened in about 1609 ... can anyone remember back to then?

    f) The last time when sunspots "disappeared" for 20 years should have been in approximately 1810 to 1830.

    g) In case anyone is getting too worried about 2012, if we go back 22.4 years to 1989-90 then according to my theory there should have been at that time a relative level of sunspot activity of 5, with Jupiter, Sun Mercury, Venus and Earth aligned. So 2012 will only be 20% more intense due to the addition of Mercury in the alignment compared with then.

    Best regards,
    Rob

  2. #2
    In case anyone wants to check the workings, here is where I calculated the relative tidal drag of each planet on the sun's surface. The result is in the column I called "M/(D^3) Normalised". Everything is normalised relative to the Earth, which obviously scores 1



    Regards,
    Rob

  3. #3
    You may want to check out this link.
    http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/cycle.html

    There are others like it, I'm sure.

    I just did a quick search on sunspot cycles.

    Hope this helps you.
    problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
    I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
    Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
    All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)


  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    of Greatest Eclipse, Aug. 21 2017 (Kentucky, USA)
    Posts
    4,418
    The sunspot data we have does not fit your model. (See AstroRockHunter's link.) How does your model account for the Maunder Minimum?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    131
    The correlation between the alignment period and observed sunspot activity of 11 years is interesting. It seems remarkable though that our tiny, distant planets could have any effect on the sun. What is the acceleration of the sun due to earth's gravity?
    Last edited by violentquaker; 2010-Jan-29 at 04:19 AM. Reason: Typo

  6. #6
    Thanks for the link. The key observed data is here:

    http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/maunder.gif

    It seems to me that the relative peaks do vary in magnitude between levels of 0 and 6 and that they are quantised into a peak of either 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.

    Obviously lots of my predictions are wrong, but then again I do not know the planetary alignment conditions with which to "reset" my model. Also I do not know which planets will align in 2012, I need to find out which side of the Sun they will be on etc.

    The periodic alignment of Sun Venus and Earth every 11.2 years appears to correlate well with the sunspot count periodicity. There were 22 peaks from 1750 to 1984, giving 11.1 years between peaks.

    The predictions of relative level of sunspot activity with tidal force levels from the model are wrong. Anyone have an explanation?

    The effect I predicted of Jupiter's alignment with Venus, Earth and Sun every 22.2 years is not seen on the observed data. I expected to see alternating "high" "low" peaks. If anyone has an explanation, please ?

    Many thanks,
    Rob
    Last edited by pzkpfw; 2010-Jan-30 at 12:13 PM. Reason: Image size (bytes)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Sherratt View Post
    Obviously lots of my predictions are wrong, but then again I do not know the planetary alignment conditions with which to "reset" my model. Also I do not know which planets will align in 2012, I need to find out which side of the Sun they will be on etc.
    What is the date of this alignment?

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Sherratt View Post
    Thanks for the link. The key observed data is here:

    http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/maunder.gif

    It seems to me that the relative peaks do vary in magnitude between levels of 0 and 6 and that they are quantised into a peak of either 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.
    It would help if you could correlate your magnitude levels with the actual number of sunspots counted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Sherratt View Post
    Obviously lots of my predictions are wrong, but then again I do not know the planetary alignment conditions with which to "reset" my model. Also I do not know which planets will align in 2012, I need to find out which side of the Sun they will be on etc.

    The periodic alignment of Sun Venus and Earth every 11.2 years appears to correlate well with the sunspot count periodicity. There were 22 peaks from 1750 to 1984, giving 11.1 years between peaks.

    The predictions of relative level of sunspot activity with tidal force levels from the model are wrong. Anyone have an explanation?

    The effect I predicted of Jupiter's alignment with Venus, Earth and Sun every 22.2 years is not seen on the observed data. I expected to see alternating "high" "low" peaks. If anyone has an explanation, please ?

    Many thanks,
    Rob
    Not that I think that your hypothesis is all that robust, but you have to remember that there are more than just four planets in our solar system.
    problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
    I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
    Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
    All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)


  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by AstroRockHunter View Post
    It would help if you could correlate your magnitude levels with the actual number of sunspots counted.
    Please can you direct me to numeric data where the actual number of sunspots were counted?

    Quote Originally Posted by AstroRockHunter View Post
    Not that I think that your hypothesis is all that robust, but you have to remember that there are more than just four planets in our solar system.
    I started by calculating the relative tidal drag on the SUN produced by all planets ... I supplied my data and calculations for scrutiny ...

    Mercury 0.953
    Venus 2.155
    Earth 1.000
    Mars 0.030
    Jupiter 2.259
    Saturn 0.109
    Uranus 0.002
    Neptune 0.001

    Taking the maximum tidal drag that could be produced by Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Jupiter (6.35) then by disregarding the effect of Mars, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune (0.143) this constitutes a 2% error and saves a lot of calculation. To almost two orders of magnitude, the most significant planetary gravitational fields influencing the surface tidal movements of the Sun are from Mercury, Venus, Earth and Jupiter.

    Regards,
    Rob

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Sherratt View Post

    The effect I predicted of Jupiter's alignment with Venus, Earth and Sun every 22.2 years is not seen on the observed data. I expected to see alternating "high" "low" peaks. If anyone has an explanation, please ?
    Do you mean besides the most likely one -- that the data falsify your theory?

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    Do you mean besides the most likely one -- that the data falsify your theory?
    Is this true or false?

    "To almost two orders of magnitude, the most significant planetary gravitational fields influencing the surface tidal movements of the Sun are from Mercury, Venus, Earth and Jupiter."

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Sherratt View Post
    Is this true or false?

    "To almost two orders of magnitude, the most significant planetary gravitational fields influencing the surface tidal movements of the Sun are from Mercury, Venus, Earth and Jupiter."
    Beware of shifting goalposts -- you originally asked a question about your hypothesis, and you also presented data that refuted it, then asked us what could be the explanation. Without knowing anything else, the most likely explanation is that the hypothesis is wrong.

    Now, are there gravitational influences on the sun by the planets orbiting around it? Of course. But that's not what your hypothesis is, correct?

Similar Threads

  1. Planetary Alignment 10-7-08
    By ShevillWMathers in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2008-Jul-11, 04:32 AM
  2. Planetary Alignment-8-7-08
    By ShevillWMathers in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2008-Jul-10, 09:38 AM
  3. planetary alignment weird theory
    By rleyland in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Apr-18, 06:34 PM
  4. Planetary Alignment
    By AndrewGPaul in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2004-Aug-26, 05:37 PM
  5. planetary alignment
    By JJ027 in forum Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2004-Feb-19, 03:07 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •