Coming sunspots

[Archmonoth]

On 6/6/2022 at 7:26 AM, WildWill said:

Also, with respect to these alignments, it would seem to me that Jupiter would “override” any alignment of minor planets and asteroids.

 

To me this is a string which unravels a knot. Regarding mass and the barycenter, not all planets are equal, and their distance also changes their influence. 

 

So here is my hot take on mass/gravity influence:

 

 

Distances, Weights, and Speculation:

 

Galactic Core= 4 million solar (Sun) masses.

Distance from the Sun: 8,000 parsecs, each parsec is 3.26 light years, each light year is 9.46 trillion kilometers, and 8 parsecs is 246,716.8 trillion kilometers.

 

This means the pull of the core is 4 million masses divided over 246,716.8 trillion kilometers, and via the Inverse Square law, would mean, whenever the distance doubles, the gravitational pull is decreased by a factor of 4.

 

This continues for 40 steps (1/2 distance) until you reach a distance of 897,000 kilometers (edge of Sun’s radius is about 700k) with a pull of 0.000,000,000,000,005,05 solar masses. (1.01x10^16 kilograms)

 

I’m not saying the gravitational pull is 1.01x10^16 kilograms but is the equivalent gravitational pull of that weight at a distance of 897,000 kilometers.

 

Jupiter is 778,000,000 kilometers from the Sun and has a weight of about 1/1047^th (.00095) solar mass.

 

Jupiter’s pull on the Sun at 759,765 kilometers (near the Sun’s edge) is 0.000,000,000,898 solar masses. This is many magnitudes above the gravitational pull of the galactic core. (1.796×10^21 kilograms)

 

So, Jupiter increases the pull towards the center of the galaxy when in alignment and inversely changes when on the other side of the Sun. This tells me there is an acceleration and deceleration of the Sun’s velocity as it travels around the barycenter at different times during Jupiter’s orbit.

 

Earth’s mass/distance:

Mass: 1/330,000 Solar masses.

Distance from the Sun: 149,000,000 kilometers

Which is to say the Earth’s pull on the Sun at 582,031 kilometers (Just inside the Sun’s Radius) is 0.000,000,000,453 solar masses. (9.06×10^20 kilograms) Earth has about half the influence as Jupiter has on the Sun.

 

The ratio and the amount are not overly important, just trying to express that there is an additive pull towards the galactic core. Each planet in alignment would add more acceleration and equivalent conservation.  

 

So, because of the acceleration, there is a curve/turn occurs in the barycenter and momentum is conserved.  My guess is that this conservation duration takes 1 solar cycle (11ish years) to complete, returning to the solar minimum after the sunspots approach the equator (butterfly pattern). This is correlative with Jupiter aligning with Sagittarius (galactic core) and Jupiter’s orbit being 11.82 years.

 

JUPITER IN SAGITTARIUS DATES
December 25, 1982 - January 19, 1984
December 9, 1994 - January 3, 1996
November 23, 2006 - December 18, 2007
November 8, 2018 - December 2, 2019
October 22, 2030 - November 15, 2031

 

 

Here are the start times of solar cycles:

Solar cycle 22: 1986-09

Solar cycle 23: 1996-08

Solar cycle 24: 2008-12

Solar cycle 25: 2019-12

 

My assumption/guess is that sunspots, flares, and CMEs are partially the result of energy/momentum being conserved after Jupiter (and other planets) changes the Sun’s velocity.

 

This study is the primary basis for this speculation: The case study for the barycenter drivers of the solar cycle (1).pdf (uvs-model.com)

 

This describes the planets only, not the galactic core, but the study shows conjunctions existing as start/stop of solar cycles. I am comparing them to the galactic pull, (a pull originating outside the solar system) to illustrate how conjunctions can be additive in a consistent and periodic direction. 

 

EDIT: I got the distant from the galactic core wrong in the calculation. The amount of influence the core has on the Sun is 1/10,000th (maybe a bit less) of the influence of Earth. I don't think the galactic core has enough influence to change the Sun's barycenter or solar activity/cycles. 

 

Here is a Desmos graph for some visualization of solar mass equivalence.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/qydeq1jchu

Edited June 11, 2022 by Archmonoth

[Newbie]

6 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

Distance from the Sun: 8 parsecs, each parsec is 3.26 light years, each light year is 9.46 trillion kilometers, and 8 parsecs is 246.7168 trillion kilometers.

 

Hello Archmonoth:

I thought 8 parsecs was a little close, you probably made a typo it is ~ 8 Kiloparsecs (26 thousand light years).

It's a great read

Newbie

[Archmonoth]

4 hours ago, Newbie said:

Hello Archmonoth:

I thought 8 parsecs was a little close, you probably made a typo it is ~ 8 Kiloparsecs (26 thousand light years).

It's a great read

Newbie

No you read it right, I thought it was 8 parsecs.   

 

8 kiloparsecs is a considerable difference. I updated/edited the calculations and Desmos graph.

 

From this updated information I don't think the galactic core would influence the momentum of the Sun, at least in terms of solar cycles/activity.

Although Jupiter and Earth (and Saturn) would have an effect. 

 

Thanks for the observation/correction! 

Edited June 11, 2022 by Archmonoth

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

11 uren geleden, Archmonoth zei:

 

To me this is a string which unravels a knot. Regarding mass and the barycenter, not all planets are equal, and their distance also changes their influence. 

 

So here is my hot take on mass/gravity influence:

 

 

Distances, Weights, and Speculation:

 

Galactic Core= 4 million solar (Sun) masses.

Distance from the Sun: 8,000 parsecs, each parsec is 3.26 light years, each light year is 9.46 trillion kilometers, and 8 parsecs is 246,716.8 trillion kilometers.

 

This means the pull of the core is 4 million masses divided over 246,716.8 trillion kilometers, and via the Inverse Square law, would mean, whenever the distance doubles, the gravitational pull is decreased by a factor of 4.

 

This continues for 40 steps (1/2 distance) until you reach a distance of 897,000 kilometers (edge of Sun’s radius is about 700k) with a pull of 0.000,000,000,000,005,05 solar masses. (1.01x10^16 kilograms)

 

I’m not saying the gravitational pull is 1.01x10^16 kilograms but is the equivalent gravitational pull of that weight at a distance of 897,000 kilometers.

 

Jupiter is 778,000,000 kilometers from the Sun and has a weight of about 1/1047^th (.00095) solar mass.

 

Jupiter’s pull on the Sun at 759,765 kilometers (near the Sun’s edge) is 0.000,000,000,898 solar masses. This is many magnitudes above the gravitational pull of the galactic core. (1.796×10^21 kilograms)

 

So, Jupiter increases the pull towards the center of the galaxy when in alignment and inversely changes when on the other side of the Sun. This tells me there is an acceleration and deceleration of the Sun’s velocity as it travels around the barycenter at different times during Jupiter’s orbit.

 

Earth’s mass/distance:

Mass: 1/330,000 Solar masses.

Distance from the Sun: 149,000,000 kilometers

Which is to say the Earth’s pull on the Sun at 582,031 kilometers (Just inside the Sun’s Radius) is 0.000,000,000,453 solar masses. (9.06×10^20 kilograms) Earth has about half the influence as Jupiter has on the Sun.

 

The ratio and the amount are not overly important, just trying to express that there is an additive pull towards the galactic core. Each planet in alignment would add more acceleration and equivalent conservation.  

 

So, because of the acceleration, there is a curve/turn occurs in the barycenter and momentum is conserved.  My guess is that this conservation duration takes 1 solar cycle (11ish years) to complete, returning to the solar minimum after the sunspots approach the equator (butterfly pattern). This is correlative with Jupiter aligning with Sagittarius (galactic core) and Jupiter’s orbit being 11.82 years.

 

JUPITER IN SAGITTARIUS DATES
December 25, 1982 - January 19, 1984
December 9, 1994 - January 3, 1996
November 23, 2006 - December 18, 2007
November 8, 2018 - December 2, 2019
October 22, 2030 - November 15, 2031

 

 

Here are the start times of solar cycles:

Solar cycle 22: 1986-09

Solar cycle 23: 1996-08

Solar cycle 24: 2008-12

Solar cycle 25: 2019-12

 

My assumption/guess is that sunspots, flares, and CMEs are partially the result of energy/momentum being conserved after Jupiter (and other planets) changes the Sun’s velocity.

 

This study is the primary basis for this speculation: The case study for the barycenter drivers of the solar cycle (1).pdf (uvs-model.com)

 

This describes the planets only, not the galactic core, but the study shows conjunctions existing as start/stop of solar cycles. I am comparing them to the galactic pull, (a pull originating outside the solar system) to illustrate how conjunctions can be additive in a consistent and periodic direction. 

 

EDIT: I got the distant from the galactic core wrong in the calculation. The amount of influence the core has on the Sun is 1/10,000th (maybe a bit less) of the influence of Earth. I don't think the galactic core has enough influence to change the Sun's barycenter or solar activity/cycles. 

 

Here is a Desmos graph for some visualization of solar mass equivalence.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/qydeq1jchu

This is nothing new. A NASA scientist has a far better explanation:
[1706.01854] Time-dependent theory of solar meridional flows

https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.01854

In the above article you can read how this influences the polar fields. The polar fields are crucial in the sunspot cycle theory and are only a part in it! 

 

(2) (PDF) A New Mathematical (and Physical) Principle to Combine Gravitation with Rotating Oscillating Magnetic Fields. A unifying algorithm that solves the Sun's differential rotation problem

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329023855_A_New_Mathematical_and_Physical_Principle_to_Combine_Gravitation_with_Rotating_Oscillating_Magnetic_Fields_A_unifying_algorithm_that_solves_the_Sun's_differential_rotation_problem

CONCLUSION

The barycentre is a TINY SMALL part of the sunspot theory.

[Newbie]

37 minutes ago, Archmonoth said:

Thanks for the observation/correction! 

All good Archmonoth.

Just a few quick Observations.

Although each Solar Cycle lasts ~ 11 years, 22 years is considered a more complete time frame to evaluate cycles. In one 11 year cycle, during Solar max, the magnetic poles of the Sun flip. In the cycle that follows the poles flip back again at Solar Max. ie the Sun returns to its original state.

Are you able to focus on the couple of years of Solar Max. and Solar Min. during these two cycles and relate it to the positioning  of Jupiter and so on and see if there a correlation? 

Observations of Sunspot Activity are largely from the Earth facing side of the Sun. Perhaps this can explain why farside activity is often more intense at times.  

... so much more to learn

N.

[Archmonoth]

2 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

This is nothing new. A NASA scientist has a far better explanation:
[1706.01854] Time-dependent theory of solar meridional flows

https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.01854

In the above article you can read how this influences the polar fields. The polar fields are crucial in the sunspot cycle theory and are only a part in it! 

You are right, this does explain it better.

 

The study was very informative and does a good job of explaining the way the Sun shares its angular momentum with the planets, mainly Jupiter and Saturn.  

 

I will be digesting this for a while. Thanks for linking this article. 

 

2 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

CONCLUSION

The barycentre is a TINY SMALL part of the sunspot theory.

I don't share your conclusion. The barycenter seems important to sun cycles and sunspots.

 

Fig1 from the link shows how the sunspot numbers have a correlation to changes in angular momentum. 

2 hours ago, Newbie said:

Are you able to focus on the couple of years of Solar Max. and Solar Min. during these two cycles and relate it to the positioning  of Jupiter and so on and see if there a correlation? 

 

I will look into this, however the article Patrick linked has lots of answers to questions about the distribution of angular momentum, including the acceleration that Jupiter causes (which is about 1 mm) which doesn't account for the changes in angular momentum being observed. 

 

The article goes into more of the spin of the Sun, and as it turns around the barycenter, particles/areas are accelerating/decelerating due to which side of the spin they are on, kind of like being in the passenger's seat of a car when turning a tight corner. 

 

From the avrix article: 

"With respect to the rotational velocity vector for a particle at 60° N, this implies that over about half of that small circle of latitude, the acceleration will constructively add to that velocity; while in the opposite hemisphere, on the same small circle of latitude, the particle velocity associated with rotation will be correspondingly diminished by the acceleration."

 

I also have much to learn. My main take-away is that the planets have less of an effect than I thought, and probably less than Patrick is suggesting. 

 

Edited June 11, 2022 by Archmonoth

[Newbie]

47 minutes ago, Archmonoth said:

I also have much to learn. My main take-away is that planets have less of an effect than I thought, and probably less than Patrick is suggesting. 

 

Hello Archmonoth, I was replying to you when Pat. posted his articles. I haven't had a chance to go through them yet, I will.

N.

 

 

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

AR3030 is old AR3014. My calculations showed it will return twice, at least, and will develop again… but slowly…

[WildWill]

1 hour ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

Don’t agree. AR3030 is 20 degrees north according to Jan Alvestad. He put AR3014 at 22 degrees north just before going to the Farside. Also my calculations show it has to return twice and will develop again.

What calculations? Can we see them? Or are they too complex for me to understand? 
 

I posed a challenge to you, perhaps you didn’t see it. So I will present it again:

How about sitting down and make all your predictions for the coming week - starting Monday (midnight tonight) through Sunday (midnight next Sunday night).

And share them with us… before the day ends. That way we can evaluate your methodology and see things like 

A) How many times you are spot on!

B) How many sunspot groups don’t appear or develop as you predicted (No Shows)?

C) How many sunspot groups/ ARs appear which you did not predict?
 

How about it? Without this type of analysis of your theory and analytics methodology, it’s just really hard to take you seriously. It seems more like astrology - particularly the way you toss the predictions out there - one little piece at a time, usually after the fact…

Also, have you given any further consideration (or any at all) to my observation that all these d the celestial bodies you seemingly use in your prediction methodology are devoid of magnetic fields?  I mean, hey - if Mercury and Mars bith factor into this, why doesn’t the earth? Why not Jupiter or any of it many moons?

Please tell me what makes Ceres and Pallas and the other bodies you use important and significant and others not…

Thanks!

Larry & Alex & O’Riley 

(Alex is my grad research assistant, O’Riley my post doc)

[3gMike]

3 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

AR3030 is old AR3014. My calculations showed it will return twice, at least, and will develop again… but slowly…

My observations indicate that the region could also include elements of 3011, so I would say that it has not returned in the same form as we saw when it left the west limb as 3014. It is vey likely that the same magnetic zone will return, but that does not mean that it is the same sunspot.

To clarify - AR3011 left at Carrington 130, latitude 18 and AR3014 left at Carrington 104, latitude 22. We now see AR3030 at Carrington 114, latitude 20

I also note that Jan Alvestad (Solen) thinks that SWPC are including additional spots from another region he has identified as part of AR 3030, so that would potentially alter the coordinates of AR3030

 

[MinYoongi]

3 minutes ago, 3gMike said:

 

I also note that Jan Alvestad (Solen) thinks that SWPC are including additional spots from another region he has identified as part of AR 3030, so that would potentially alter the coordinates of AR3030

 

I've seen that too, but it's confusing to me. 

So he's treating the Region as two AR's while Noaa is treating it as one, and I dont know what to think.

they just stated "

Since Region 3030 has moved into
better viewing position it appears to be two separate regions."

 

but did not re-issue a new number for one of them. so they recognize its two AR's now.

[WildWill]

Looks like a “new” spot has popped up in the south! And the spots associated with 3029 have faded. I will hazard a prediction - 60% chance of redevelopment of sunspots in the magnetically active region that is the remnants of 3029.  I will tell y’all how I came up with that prediction on Tuesday…

Cheers!

WW

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

16 uren geleden, MinYoongi zei:

I've seen that too, but it's confusing to me. 

So he's treating the Region as two AR's while Noaa is treating it as one, and I dont know what to think.

they just stated "

Since Region 3030 has moved into
better viewing position it appears to be two separate regions."

 

but did not re-issue a new number for one of them. so they recognize its two AR's now.

Sunspots sometimes split. Afterwards they could merge again. My guess is that AR3030 is AR3014. Currently it looks like AR3030 is flaring, so that implies a connection between the split one and the other. Developing…

[3gMike]

6 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

Sunspots sometimes split. Afterwards they could merge again. My guess is that AR3030 is AR3014. Currently it looks like AR3030 is flaring, so that implies a connection between the split one and the other. Developing…

If you check coordinates you will find that AR3032 is very close to the location of the old AR3014

[WildWill]

1 hour ago, 3gMike said:

If you check coordinates you will find that AR3032 is very close to the location of the old AR3014

Whoa, Nellie! What’s all the obsession with 3014? The biggest so far, but I would be willing to wager, bigger regions to come!

I believe 3014 went around the western limb around 25 May. It being 13 June, that would make 17 days. 

Is it just me, or does that seem like a bit of a stretch??

[3gMike]

55 minutes ago, WildWill said:

Is it just me, or does that seem like a bit of a stretch??

No, it is not a stretch, because AR3014 was recorded at 87W on 27th May (00:00) and AR3032 was recorded at 46E on 13th June(00:00), so it is just over 3 days from the East limb. At 13.5 (half rotation) + 3.5 = 17 days that seems right. But what makes me certain is that we can compare Carrington longitudes. AR3014 was at Carrington 104 on the 27th May, and AR3032 is at Carrington 106 today.

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

The reason why the activity is ramping up is twofold. The long Triple with Venus and the long Triple with Mercury.

in the second part of the month we see continuous alignments with Venus and Mercury. Very large activity on this side or the Farside are highly likely! As we see the alignments go further into July… So hold your breath…

This indicator has a very high prediction value… it is explained in this article…

(1) (PDF) Electromagnetic Waves and Solar Killshots

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355037930_Electromagnetic_Waves_and_Solar_Killshots

and this…

(1) (PDF) How we Predicted the Complexity of AR 2975

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359993083_How_we_Predicted_the_Complexity_of_AR_2975

June 1 (04:15) – 29 (00:15), 2022 Triple Line Up Neptune – Jupiter - Venus

June 7 (14:30) – July 1 (09:30), 2022 Triple Line Up Uranus – Pallas – Mercury

June 10 (07:15) – 13 (14:45), 2022 Triple Line Up Uranus – Venus – Earth

June 13 (12:15) – 16 (16:45), 2022 Triple Line Up Pallas – Venus – Earth

June 17 (22:00) – 24 (12:30), 2022 Triple Line Up Pluto – Mercury – Ceres

June 22 (03:00) - 29 (15:00), 2022 Triple Line Up Juno – Mars – Venus

June 26 (10:30) – July 20 (06:15), 2022 Triple Line Up Neptune – Jupiter - Mercury

June 27 (01:00) – July 28 (23:00), 2022 Triple Line Up Ceres – Venus – Juno 

June 27 (03:45) – July 8 (20:00), 2022 Triple Line Up Pluto – Vesta - Venus

June 29 (07:15) – July 11 (20:45), 2022 Triple Line Up Uranus – Pallas – Venus

Edited June 14, 2022 by Patrick P.A. Geryl

[WildWill]

8 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

The reason why the activity is ramping up is twofold. The long Triple with Venus and the long Triple with Mercury.

in the second part of the month we see continuous alignments with Venus and Mercury. Very large activity on this side or the Farside are highly likely! As we see the alignments go further into July… So hold your breath…

This indicator has a very high prediction value… it is explained in this article…

(1) (PDF) Electromagnetic Waves and Solar Killshots

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355037930_Electromagnetic_Waves_and_Solar_Killshots

and this…

(1) (PDF) How we Predicted the Complexity of AR 2975

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359993083_How_we_Predicted_the_Complexity_of_AR_2975

June 1 (04:15) – 29 (00:15), 2022 Triple Line Up Neptune – Jupiter - Venus

June 7 (14:30) – July 1 (09:30), 2022 Triple Line Up Uranus – Pallas – Mercury

June 10 (07:15) – 13 (14:45), 2022 Triple Line Up Uranus – Venus – Earth

June 13 (12:15) – 16 (16:45), 2022 Triple Line Up Pallas – Venus – Earth

June 17 (22:00) – 24 (12:30), 2022 Triple Line Up Pluto – Mercury – Ceres

June 22 (03:00) - 29 (15:00), 2022 Triple Line Up Juno – Mars – Venus

June 26 (10:30) – July 20 (06:15), 2022 Triple Line Up Neptune – Jupiter - Mercury

June 27 (01:00) – July 28 (23:00), 2022 Triple Line Up Ceres – Venus – Juno 

June 27 (03:45) – July 8 (20:00), 2022 Triple Line Up Pluto – Vesta - Venus

June 29 (07:15) – July 11 (20:45), 2022 Triple Line Up Uranus – Pallas – Venus

Hi Patrick!

According to your calculations and theory, it looks to be a very exciting month!

I hope you are correct. Some of this does still seem like astrology to me, but everything has its beginnings somewhere.

As we go through the next month, as we get closer to each alignment, can you be more specific with regard to existing and possibly new ARs/sunspots?

I read some of the articles you e posted to researchgate. In one, you look at the differential rotation rates at the equator and the sun. I don’t quite follow all of your terminology, however, your dimensional analysis is flaws. I think it would be more clear if you went through the dimensional analysis from the beginning.  In other words, for example, it’s not 25.xxx days, but days/rotation. In ME (Mechanical Engineering) Statics and Dynamics & and General Physics - courses required by all Engineering students, a  strong emphasis is placed on dimensional analysis. Many of the quantities which you ascribe to be dimensionless (just a number - as you phrase it) are not dimensionless. I think if you backed up to the beginning where you define quantities and included dimensions starting there, you would find that the results are not dimensionless.

After reading some of your work, and developing a rudimentary understanding of your terminology, your methodology begins to “resonate” with me, to an extent (pun intended). 
 

As I had observed earlier, all the bodies you deem to be significant, are those without magnetic fields of their own. Charged particles from the sun are, for the most part, deflected around the earth by its magnetic field.

if I understand correctly, the charged particles striking Mars, for example, reach the surface, are absorbed, then emitted back toward the sun. When you have multiple bodies without magnetic fields lined up, a perpendicular line from the center of. The sun facing side of each body will hit the sun in the same area. Kinda like focusing three ray guns on the same spot. Is this what you call a “kill shot”? If not, please define the term for me.

I look forward to seeing how the next month turns out!

Cheers.

L & ATG

[3gMike]

12 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

The reason why the activity is ramping up is twofold. The long Triple with Venus and the long Triple with Mercury.

in the second part of the month we see continuous alignments with Venus and Mercury. Very large activity on this side or the Farside are highly likely! As we see the alignments go further into July… So hold your breath…

This indicator has a very high prediction value… it is explained in this article…

(1) (PDF) Electromagnetic Waves and Solar Killshots

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355037930_Electromagnetic_Waves_and_Solar_Killshots

and this…

(1) (PDF) How we Predicted the Complexity of AR 2975

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359993083_How_we_Predicted_the_Complexity_of_AR_2975

June 1 (04:15) – 29 (00:15), 2022 Triple Line Up Neptune – Jupiter - Venus

June 7 (14:30) – July 1 (09:30), 2022 Triple Line Up Uranus – Pallas – Mercury

June 10 (07:15) – 13 (14:45), 2022 Triple Line Up Uranus – Venus – Earth

June 13 (12:15) – 16 (16:45), 2022 Triple Line Up Pallas – Venus – Earth

June 17 (22:00) – 24 (12:30), 2022 Triple Line Up Pluto – Mercury – Ceres

June 22 (03:00) - 29 (15:00), 2022 Triple Line Up Juno – Mars – Venus

June 26 (10:30) – July 20 (06:15), 2022 Triple Line Up Neptune – Jupiter - Mercury

June 27 (01:00) – July 28 (23:00), 2022 Triple Line Up Ceres – Venus – Juno 

June 27 (03:45) – July 8 (20:00), 2022 Triple Line Up Pluto – Vesta - Venus

June 29 (07:15) – July 11 (20:45), 2022 Triple Line Up Uranus – Pallas – Venus

Patrick, can you please clarify what you are predicting here. Are you suggesting that existing spots will become more active because of these alignments, or are you saying that completely new spots will arise and be very active?

Please accept this map as a starting point for discussion of alignments.

This a marked up map for July 3rd taken from Planets Today website.

The reason for choosing July 3rd was because that date is included in all of your last four lines. I do not have information for the locations of Vesta or Pallas, so I have just marked them where the associated line crosses the Asteroid belt. Obviously, they may be on the other side of the belt - please confirm actual location. I omitted the line for Ceres / Venus/Juno because I had no way to estimate Ceres / Juno locations.

None of the three lines drawn intersect the Sun. Can you explain how they then interact to produce spots. I know you have spoken elsewhere about resonance and "GSM-like" signals but it would be helpful if you could describe how a reaction is initiated.

The line for Neptune/Jupiter/Mercury only grazes Jupiter.Does that mean that alignments are counted even when the lines do not go through the planet centre? How much deviation is allowed? I think you have previously suggested a figure of 3.5 degrees, but exactly how is that defined?

Edited June 14, 2022 by 3gMike
Added map of alignments

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

6 uren geleden, WildWill zei:

Hi Patrick!

According to your calculations and theory, it looks to be a very exciting month!

I hope you are correct. Some of this does still seem like astrology to me, but everything has its beginnings somewhere.

As we go through the next month, as we get closer to each alignment, can you be more specific with regard to existing and possibly new ARs/sunspots?

I read some of the articles you e posted to researchgate. In one, you look at the differential rotation rates at the equator and the sun. I don’t quite follow all of your terminology, however, your dimensional analysis is flaws. I think it would be more clear if you went through the dimensional analysis from the beginning.  In other words, for example, it’s not 25.xxx days, but days/rotation. In ME (Mechanical Engineering) Statics and Dynamics & and General Physics - courses required by all Engineering students, a  strong emphasis is placed on dimensional analysis. Many of the quantities which you ascribe to be dimensionless (just a number - as you phrase it) are not dimensionless. I think if you backed up to the beginning where you define quantities and included dimensions starting there, you would find that the results are not dimensionless.

After reading some of your work, and developing a rudimentary understanding of your terminology, your methodology begins to “resonate” with me, to an extent (pun intended). 
 

As I had observed earlier, all the bodies you deem to be significant, are those without magnetic fields of their own. Charged particles from the sun are, for the most part, deflected around the earth by its magnetic field.

if I understand correctly, the charged particles striking Mars, for example, reach the surface, are absorbed, then emitted back toward the sun. When you have multiple bodies without magnetic fields lined up, a perpendicular line from the center of. The sun facing side of each body will hit the sun in the same area. Kinda like focusing three ray guns on the same spot. Is this what you call a “kill shot”? If not, please define the term for me.

I look forward to seeing how the next month turns out!

Cheers.

L & ATG

Sorry to say, but you failed, like all the other physicists… It is explained here. We need a new mathematical-physics principle

(4) (PDF) A New Mathematical-Physics Principle for Differential Rotating Bodies

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349806182_A_New_Mathematical-Physics_Principle_for_Differential_Rotating_Bodies

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

12 uren geleden, 3gMike zei:

Patrick, can you please clarify what you are predicting here. Are you suggesting that existing spots will become more active because of these alignments, or are you saying that completely new spots will arise and be very active?

Please accept this map as a starting point for discussion of alignments.

This a marked up map for July 3rd taken from Planets Today website.

The reason for choosing July 3rd was because that date is included in all of your last four lines. I do not have information for the locations of Vesta or Pallas, so I have just marked them where the associated line crosses the Asteroid belt. Obviously, they may be on the other side of the belt - please confirm actual location. I omitted the line for Ceres / Venus/Juno because I had no way to estimate Ceres / Juno locations.

None of the three lines drawn intersect the Sun. Can you explain how they then interact to produce spots. I know you have spoken elsewhere about resonance and "GSM-like" signals but it would be helpful if you could describe how a reaction is initiated.

The line for Neptune/Jupiter/Mercury only grazes Jupiter.Does that mean that alignments are counted even when the lines do not go through the planet centre? How much deviation is allowed? I think you have previously suggested a figure of 3.5 degrees, but exactly how is that defined?

The planet or planetoïde in the middle of the Triple is the midpoint. So the two others are in opposition! Uranus-Pallas-Venus means Pallas is the midpoint. This way you can find it!

This article explains why rotating bodies have such a huge influence on each other

4) (PDF) A New Mathematical-Physics Principle for Differential Rotating Bodies

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349806182_A_New_Mathematical-Physics_Principle_for_Differential_Rotating_Bodies

long Triples induce high activity by activating old sunspots or creating high activity in new ones. Works always. 

[3gMike]

4 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

The planet or planetoïde in the middle of the Triple is the midpoint. So the two others are in opposition! Uranus-Pallas-Venus means Pallas is the midpoint. This way you can find it!

Thank you for that explanation. So now I could redraw the map to include the fourth alignment

Should I have also redrawn the green line to be centred on Jupiter and lay either side of Neptune & Mercury?

4 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

long Triples induce high activity by activating old sunspots or creating high activity in new ones. Works always. 

If I remember correctly, you have previously said that the alignments are somehow bound to particular spots and may cause others to decay. Bearing that in mind, are you saying that long triples will either re-activate old spots or create high activity in new ones - but not both at the same time? Can you please also clarify - does your theory only apply to high activity spots?

Based on the alignments in the map above where would you expect sunspots to be formed?

Edited June 15, 2022 by 3gMike
Additional question re point of formation

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

Maybe you can try to find where they appear?
 

June 17 22:00

June 17 (01:15) – 18 (03:00), 2022: Conjunction Mercury - Saturn and the Sun

June 17 (22:00) – 24 (12:30), 2022 Triple Line Up Pluto – Mercury – Ceres

 June 22   03:00

June 21 (13:15) – 22 (09:30), 2022: Conjunction Mercury - Mars and the Sun

June 22 (01:00) – 24 (11:15), 2022: Conjunction Chiron - Venus and the Sun

June 22 (03:00) - 29 (15:00), 2022 Triple Line Up Juno – Mars – Venus

 June 26     10:30

June 25 (20:00) – 26 (15:45), 2022: Conjunction Mercury - Jupiter and the Sun

June 26 (10:30) – July 20 (06:15), 2022 Triple Line Up Neptune – Jupiter - Mercury

f I remember correctly, you have previously said that the alignments are somehow bound to particular spots and may cause others to decay. Bearing that in mind, are you saying that long triples will either re-activate old spots or create high activity in new ones - but not both at the same time?

-yes, this is correct. For instance the Triple June 26 (10:30) – July 20 (06:15), 2022 Triple Line Up Neptune – Jupiter - Mercury could reactivate old AR3014. If it would do that, it would mean a super flare. The new alignment prevents this. But! After some time for a yet unknown reason old AR3014 could be activated… 

Can you please also clarify - does your theory only apply to high activity spots?

-All spots
 

Edited June 15, 2022 by Patrick P.A. Geryl

[WildWill]

3 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

 

-yes, this is correct. For instance the Triple June 26 (10:30) – July 20 (06:15), 2022 Triple Line Up Neptune – Jupiter - Mercury could reactivate old AR3014. If it would do that, it would mean a super flare. The new alignment prevents this. But! After some time for a yet unknown reason old AR3014 could be activated… 

Can you please also clarify - does your theory only apply to high activity spots?

-All spots
 

OK, now this is really sounding like Astrology. 
 

Just to prove me wrong, would you please clarify what will happen with each of the “alignments” that you laid out yesterday? Perhaps you could initiate a new thread, a reference thread containing only your predictions and perhaps another to follow and discuss those predictions?

I like the “… the triple June 26 - July 20… … could reactivate AR13014. If it would do that, it would mean a super flare…”  gotta love that level of certainty!

 

so if 3014 is “reactivated” but there is no super flare, does that mean it wasn’t really 3014?? Always an “out”!

When I was skydiving, one of the most important rules was “always have an out”. As soon as you are under a canopy and have done your canopy checks (Square, Stable & Steerable) the next thing is to scan the ground for the nearest places to land. Which might be behind you! Then as you fly back towards the drop zone, you always want to have a safe landing zone - just in case. You might hit a headwind at 1000m and can’t get back. - Always have an out…”

Cheers!

ATG & Dr. O

Edited June 15, 2022 by WildWill

[WildWill]

Hi Patrick,

Fall in silence, no. I’ve been in bed for the last 16 hours. 
 

I am not smart enough to follow your arguments! I agree with you here. As myself and everyone for the last 400 years has it wrong, but you have it right… 

Much of it looks like nonsensical gibberish to me. So, I guess I am not smart enough to understand it. I am smart enough to figure out that the American Mathematical Society isn’t smart enough to follow it either.

Please, further enlighten me… inquiring minds want to know!

With regards to your “dimensional analysis”. It’s very hard to follow your analysis given the terminology you use. For example, where you state the result is a “number” and how can that be? I would respond that it’s “dimensionless”, and in the case of the ratio of the rotation rates at the poles vs equator, the result is a ratio. 
 

Let f(x) be defined as the rotation rate of the surface of the sun at a given latitude, x.  Where x is given in degrees. Thus, -90* <= x < = 90* as we have the latitude at the equator defined as the equator.

Then the units on f would be degrees/ unit of time - no this case,  days. (Personally, I would use the SI units for time and degrees as seconds and radians, as those are the international standards (you can usually find them on the inside cover of any General Physics book…)

then, if we consider the quantity f(90)/f(0)

then, looking at the dimensions, as we have f/f -> time/angle / time/angle -> we have a ratio, a dimensionless quantity. Which is correct. It is a “number” as you state, but in Physics, we would say that is dimensionless. f(0) is a number, as is f(90). And so is the ratio. The distinction is that f(0) and f(90) have units associated with them, the ratio does not.

In your “paper” you skip a lot of steps and lay out the mathematics in paragraph form. I’m a single paragraph, I’m am not understanding how you got from one “step” to he next. 

im hoping I am not so dumb that I am writing gibberish here… or so badly that you can’t follow it.

When I took Calc I in college. The prof required that you lay out every step of a solution and provide a justification for it (such as “apply chain rule”). A year later, in Me 211 (statics) the requirement to include units and dimensional analysis with each step/problem.  I am very thankful to that first calc prof. He set me up on the right course from the beginning. He was a real hoot! Anyway, in Statics, one of the reasons for doing the dimensional analysis is to ensure that you got the units you were expecting like radians/second. It provides a “check” on your solution. If the dimensions are not correct, better go back and figure out why.

This is why we use SI units and follow a rigorous methodology.  It’s impossible for me to follow your mathematical arguments and logic. I guess I am not smart enough. Perhaps you should write a book: “sunspots for dummies!” for myself and all the physicists who have it all wrong.

Sorry, but it really does sound more and more like astrology!  Would you please lay out your torsional theory in a more rigorous format and fill in the missing steps? For people who are not as smart as you? 
 

Kindest!

Larry Kealey