Unproven theories

[Drax Spacex]

What I'm referring to is the randomly inserted snippets of mathematical or theoretical physics jargon that have no relation to the context of the discussion.  That seems like a AI interjection, or a cut-and-paste of impressive sounding technobabble that obfuscates more than elucidates. 

e.g. 

"It seem to be at least one fluctuating quantum at time, which is the initial condition of existence and consciousness, that quantum is the point of reference of equilibrium and represented as the mathematical zero....."

"The concave lens vision is quasi-well formulated by einstein-hilbert field equations, it's the curvature tensor, in which time is only an expresion (reference) of the "evolution" of that space curvature (as acceleration)."

Stick to a logical progression in the discussion of theory, and you are more likely to engage and retain your audience.

[Philalethes]

2 minutes ago, Drax Spacex said:

What I'm referring to is the randomly inserted snippets of mathematical or theoretical physics jargon that have no relation to the context of the discussion.  That seems like a AI interjection, or a cut-and-paste of impressive sounding technobabble that obfuscates more than elucidates. 

e.g. 

"It seem to be at least one fluctuating quantum at time, which is the initial condition of existence and consciousness, that quantum is the point of reference of equilibrium and represented as the mathematical zero....."

"The concave lens vision is quasi-well formulated by einstein-hilbert field equations, it's the curvature tensor, in which time is only an expresion (reference) of the "evolution" of that space curvature (as acceleration)."

Stick to a logical progression in the discussion of theory, and you are more likely to engage and retain your audience.

Reionize electrons!

[Archmonoth]

13 hours ago, _00_ said:

if is the case, mines are some of the 50% human generated ones: try asking to IA about cosmogenesis misteries, "dark" energy or similar... 

This makes much more sense now. I have avoided being pedantic about your posts. However, much of your posts have no syntax, they don't point at anything, or reference a train of thought. 

13 hours ago, _00_ said:

AI is human made, relations of IA are human made, IA is feed with human data,

Data isn't communication. Semantics require points of reference and sequential steps to arrive at conclusions or opinions. 

13 hours ago, _00_ said:

In a human life, the best you can do is LIVE, the best that IA can do is LEARN.

Neural networks are an interesting topic, although not space weather related. The furthest reach of the concept would be having AI astronauts who can endure the radiation and conditions of space weather. 

 

What would you use to shield AI astronauts from the effects of the solar wind? Or A CME? If you want to talk about neural networks, I am happy to reply to direct messaging. 

13 hours ago, _00_ said:

By the way, IA development is do by tensorflow analisys application.

 

 

I get where you are coming from, but without a point of reference, sequential explanation, or common language, it sounds a lot like babbling.

 

Also, using quotes for "evolution" in the middle of a technical description is quite confusing. Evolution is a specific term, but if it's in quotes, do you mean something other than evolution? 

 

4 hours ago, Philalethes said:

Reionize electrons!

Ahh yisss! 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Archmonoth

[_00_]

sorry for my grammar & my english, as i said in first post I'm a spanish speaker, a 53 years old man with studies of telecommunication engineering, system & equipments, with interest in all aspect of live (or death), searching the sense of existence in all ways, specially on science...

that is my point of reference,

and all ways give me similar perceptions that I try to integrate, since first moment of existence, imagining how universe work, applying all the scientific knowledge we have acquired, from basic geometry to abstract multidimensional concepts,

first step is think about how energy appear, something that cannot and will never be explained, before isn't 0, before is nothing (and all), am empty space, not 0,

in physics that moment is 1, in maths that moment is 0 expressed, in physics 0 isn't nothing, in physics 0 is a equilibrium condition, if we normalize physics to that moment of first appearance of energy, we can call quantum, there is no sense an expression between 0 and 1, is quantum, the only sense of this space is as reference point,

the less energy progression or movement isn't a expansion or contraction, is a rotation,an after a dimensional progresion, with conservative energy, and the best way of grow without lost identity is through phy proportion, that is the concept of smallbang origin that progress as a wave front that create "space" in its limits,

other consecuence of this kind of origin is a curved space differential (that is what relativity theory formulates) and a divergence and convergence fields, that could be expressed as density distribution,

in relativity time doesn't exist, it could be expressed as a curved space differential, and if there isn't time i can't express it as "evolution"

...

yes, you have reason,  to convey the concept that a single quantum is part and reflection of a whole it is necessary to do so in detail with clear scientific references.

difficult when I have to take care of several dependents without help and ¡also difficult in a hodgepodge thread!

I will stop posting messages and limit myself to debating or explaining myself only on specific issues that you want to discuss.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Archmonoth]

15 hours ago, _00_ said:

first step is think about how energy appear, something that cannot and will never be explained, before isn't 0, before is nothing (and all), am empty space, not 0,

You might find the history of zero to be of interest. Zero was Arabic for "empty" and used in India for years and wasn't adopted into English until 1580. The wiki is pretty good, but there are books written about zero worth checking out. 0 - Wikipedia

 

Zero as a general concept is a reference to the lack of something. Zero apples, is a lack of apples. Zero energy is a lack of energy. 

15 hours ago, _00_ said:

in physics that moment is 1, in maths that moment is 0 expressed, in physics 0 isn't nothing, in physics 0 is a equilibrium condition, if we normalize physics to that moment of first appearance of energy, we can call quantum, there is no sense an expression between 0 and 1, is quantum, the only sense of this space is as reference point,

I don't think quantum is the appearance of energy, there are an uncounted/infinite number of points between 1 and 0. 

 

What does "normalize physics" mean?

What does " no sense an expression between 0 and 1" mean?

What is a "sense of space"?

 

I am asking for clarification so I can understand what you mean. 

15 hours ago, _00_ said:

the less energy progression or movement isn't a expansion or contraction, is a rotation,an after a dimensional progresion, with conservative energy, and the best way of grow without lost identity is through phy proportion, that is the concept of smallbang origin that progress as a wave front that create "space" in its limits,

Since I don't understand the previous expressions, many of these don't mean anything to me. 

 

What does " a rotation an after a dimension progression" mean? What dimension? What is rotating? 

What does "grow without a lost identity" mean? What is growing? What do you mean by "identity"? 

What do you mean by "space" and why is it in quotes? Do you mean spacetime? 

 

I think I understand what you mean by small bang, and I would love to hear more. Perhaps private message me a bit more of the general physics stuff?

15 hours ago, _00_ said:

other consecuence of this kind of origin is a curved space differential (that is what relativity theory formulates) and a divergence and convergence fields, that could be expressed as density distribution,

Density distribution and this phrase seem like entropy, which I have mentioned a few times to others. Are you aware of how entropy works with thermodynamics? 

15 hours ago, _00_ said:

in relativity time doesn't exist, it could be expressed as a curved space differential, and if there isn't time i can't express it as "evolution"

Time is a measurement of change, so there is time. A differential in curved space, might be called time dilatation. Time dilation - Wikipedia 

15 hours ago, _00_ said:

...

yes, you have reason,  to convey the concept that a single quantum is part and reflection of a whole it is necessary to do so in detail with clear scientific references.

I am not sure what this phrase means. In a general sense the quantum world or quantum mechanics is a tiny subatomic system with entangled pieces. If you are trying to express the idea of entanglement, there are virtually no testable examples in the macro world. 

15 hours ago, _00_ said:

difficult when I have to take care of several dependents without help and ¡also difficult in a hodgepodge thread!

I will stop posting messages and limit myself to debating or explaining myself only on specific issues that you want to discuss.

 

You can always privately message me for more conversation, clarification, and perhaps we can find a common language/terms. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Archmonoth

[suppose]

I have read a couple of papers by Valentina Zharkova et al. She claims that she has found the "beat" of the sun, that she can predict the amplitude of the next solar cycle.

In a recent paper she writes:

"In the next 30 years, the Sun is entering a period of reduced solar activity, the modern grand solar minimum [29], which can be called a ‘mini ice age’, similar to the Maunder Minimum. This is already confirmed by the sharpest increase of spotless days in cycle 25 compared to all other cycles [64, 30], or by a sharp increase of the methane index in the terrestrial atmosphere supposedly caused by a decrease of the UV radiation of the Sun igniting a decrease of the terrestrial ozone abundances caused by it [112]. There were also signs of the reducing terrestrial temperature recorded in the past decades until the minimum between cycles 24 and 25"

"Given that cycle 25 is still at its maximum, further confirmation of the reduction of solar activity and its effect on the terrestrial atmosphere will come during the next decade, in the descending phase of cycle 25 and the solar minimum between cycles 25 and 26. This is when the full grand solar minimum will occur in the Sun leading to a significantly reduced solar magnetic field"

Is she right about the signs mentioned? decrease in UV? long period of spotless days in the last solar minimum?

When I found one of her earlier papers some years ago, I was amazed of what she had found. But recently after following the progress of cycle 25, I feel sceptic. It looks like cycle 25 is going to be a strong one.

She claims though that the grand solar minimum will begin on the descending phase of cycle 25, so it is not yet too late for her prediction to be true. Will it?

[Jesterface23]

On 11/22/2023 at 12:54 PM, suppose said:

Is she right about the signs mentioned? decrease in UV? long period of spotless days in the last solar minimum?

When I found one of her earlier papers some years ago, I was amazed of what she had found. But recently after following the progress of cycle 25, I feel sceptic. It looks like cycle 25 is going to be a strong one.

She claims though that the grand solar minimum will begin on the descending phase of cycle 25, so it is not yet too late for her prediction to be true. Will it?

All we can do is wait and see at this point. It would be pretty interesting with how there is the roughly 11 year solar cycles, during each cycle there are shorter periods where the sunspot activity increases and decreases. Going to even larger scale patterns would make sense. Obviously there could be outliers in any of those where the activity is higher or lower than expected before going back to a recognizable pattern.

[tniickck]

On 11/22/2023 at 9:54 PM, suppose said:

Is she right about the signs mentioned? decrease in UV? long period of spotless days in the last solar minimum? 

She claims though that the grand solar minimum will begin on the descending phase of cycle 25, so it is not yet too late for her prediction to be true. Will it?

i dont think she is right. we are now entering a the minimum of the secular cycle (the last one was 1890-1910), but it will not start a new Maunder minimum, and i dont find any connection between spotless days and future solar activity. as @Jesterface23already said, we can only wait and see

Edited November 24, 2023 by tniickck

[Orilander]

Count me as three for three on what @Jesterface23 said, wait and see until we get to the back half. But so far, I think we're certainly in for a strong-ish cycle. At least compared to the last one.

[tniickck]

11 minutes ago, Orilander said:

Count me as three for three on what @Jesterface23 said, wait and see until we get to the back half. But so far, I think we're certainly in for a strong-ish cycle. At least compared to the last one.

not really strongish. if compare with the average of all recorded cycles, the 25th cycle is slightly weaker than the average. At least for now, but at the end of the cycle, we'll be able to sum up

[suppose]

9 hours ago, tniickck said:

i dont think she is right. we are now entering a the minimum of the secular cycle (the last one was 1890-1910), but it will not start a new Maunder minimum, and i dont find any connection between spotless days and future solar activity. as @Jesterface23already said, we can only wait and see

Sounds like a good guess. I found a site with a list of spotless days per year since 1849. 2019 is in the top 4, only beaten by 1913, 1901, and 1878. So, within your interval.

https://www.sidc.be/SILSO/spotless
 

Since Zharkovas work is based on identifying cycles in sunspot data, when you say the solar activity will go into the minimum of the secular cycle, wouldn't it also be possible that the secular minimum coincides with the minimum of some other cycles, leading to a much deeper, or longer, minimum?

Edited November 24, 2023 by suppose

[helios]

Zharkova seems to be very determined to predict a global cooling, regardless of the reason.
A few months ago she was co-author of a paper which concluded that the (grand) solar minimum would be causing volanic activity ...

I have the impression that her goal is not to understand solar activity, but to find any reason that the earth will be cooling.

 

[Archmonoth]

On 11/24/2023 at 1:40 PM, suppose said:

Since Zharkovas work is based on identifying cycles in sunspot data, when you say the solar activity will go into the minimum of the secular cycle, wouldn't it also be possible that the secular minimum coincides with the minimum of some other cycles, leading to a much deeper, or longer, minimum?

There is constant effort spent in correlating sunspots with strength of the cycle. The number of spots doesn't necessarily reflect the strength of the flares, since some spots are stronger and more active than others.

 

However, correlation can lead to all kinds of things, and Zharkova was trying hard to predict the Sun. 30 years is a long time for a prediction. We now know more about the variables. The SSN (Smoothed Sunspot Number) is a good place to start, but I don't bet money on any of those predictions. 

 

Methane for example in the atmosphere has terrestrial conditions, Permafrost, biological issues like temperature, pollution, etc. all affect the methane released. Perhaps there is a systemic effect/effects, regarding methane and a connection to Sun activity, but local variables in methane atmospheric concentration have nothing/little to do with the Sun cycles.

 

As far as guessing, I think SC 25 is going to about the same as 23, or within 5% +/- SSN of SC23, and my guess comes from the barycenter location to the Sun. Solar cycles where the barycenter is within the radius of the Sun is generally a lower SSN/activity and higher when the barycenter is outside the radius. So my guess is that flares/spots are turbulence from the conservation of momentum of the Sun. These are not tidal forces (effects of gravity), but conservation of momentum. 

 

Also, there is a connection of the SC and the angular momentum of the solar system, and how the Sun transfer energy to the Spin/rotation of Jupiter/Saturn, which both planets account for 90%+ of the angular momentum in the solar system. Here is a thread form earlier this year with all the links and conversation about this idea. 

 

So as others have said, the Sun is a complicated systems with lots of conditions and parts, so guessing a Solar cycle just on SSN is a strategy but has proven to be an incomplete method of prediction.  

[Philalethes]

@tniickck:  

4 minutes ago, tniickck said:

volcanos and earthquakes have no connections to geomagnetic activity

It would be great if people could take these discussions here, where they belong, at least when the thread is explicitly mentioned.

There is some evidence for a weak link overall between seismic activity and geomagnetic activity, as has been discussed quite a lot in this thread already, but it's certainly not as simple as "oh look, G2, lots of earthquakes everywhere", which would be a very naive approach. The closest thing we've seen so far (or at least that I've seen) to a single event showing this link by itself was the double 7+ Mw earthquakes that came very shortly after one of the G4 storms previously this cycle, which would be extremely unlikely to happen independently statistically speaking (but it could of course still be coincidence, can't rule that out).

If you look through the thread you can see a lot of the discussion and scientific evidence and decide for yourself, but I definitely don't think we can say conclusively that there's no link, as there does seem to be a weak link, but it's mostly one that crops up in large-scale analyses (I've made all these points previously, so you can read those in more detail there) rather than in single events (especially not in this case, at least I don't see anything that would indicate any increase in seismic activity from the last storm).

[suppose]

On 12/20/2023 at 11:53 AM, Philalethes said:

There is some evidence for a weak link overall between seismic activity and geomagnetic activity

Some years ago I read a paper on this subject. My impression was that the link was pretty strong:

Quote

• Of the historical 31 large volcanic eruptions with index VEI5+, recorded between 1610 and 1955, 29 of these were recorded when the SSN<46. The remaining 2 eruptions were not recorded when the SSN<46, but rather during solar maxima of the solar cycle of the year 1739 and in the solar cycle No. 14 (Shikotsu eruption of 1739 and Ksudach 1907) (chart 1).
• Of the historical 8 large volcanic eruptions with index VEI6+, recorded from 1610 to the present, 7 of these were recorded with SSN<46 and more specifically, within the three large solar minima known : Maunder (1645-1710), Dalton (1790-1830) and during the solar minimums occurred between 1880 and 1920. As the only exception, we note the eruption of Pinatubo of June 1991, recorded in the solar maximum of cycle 22 (chart 2).
• Of the historical 6 major volcanic eruptions with index VEI5+, recorded after 1955, 5 of these were not recorded during periods of low solar activity, but rather during solar maxima, of the cycles 19,21 and 22.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014EGUGA..16.1385C/abstract

[hamateur 1953]

On 12/16/2023 at 11:50 AM, Archmonoth said:

There is constant effort spent in correlating sunspots with strength of the cycle. The number of spots doesn't necessarily reflect the strength of the flares, since some spots are stronger and more active than others.

 

However, correlation can lead to all kinds of things, and Zharkova was trying hard to predict the Sun. 30 years is a long time for a prediction. We now know more about the variables. The SSN (Smoothed Sunspot Number) is a good place to start, but I don't bet money on any of those predictions. 

 

Methane for example in the atmosphere has terrestrial conditions, Permafrost, biological issues like temperature, pollution, etc. all affect the methane released. Perhaps there is a systemic effect/effects, regarding methane and a connection to Sun activity, but local variables in methane atmospheric concentration have nothing/little to do with the Sun cycles.

 

As far as guessing, I think SC 25 is going to about the same as 23, or within 5% +/- SSN of SC23, and my guess comes from the barycenter location to the Sun. Solar cycles where the barycenter is within the radius of the Sun is generally a lower SSN/activity and higher when the barycenter is outside the radius. So my guess is that flares/spots are turbulence from the conservation of momentum of the Sun. These are not tidal forces (effects of gravity), but conservation of momentum. 

 

Also, there is a connection of the SC and the angular momentum of the solar system, and how the Sun transfer energy to the Spin/rotation of Jupiter/Saturn, which both planets account for 90%+ of the angular momentum in the solar system. Here is a thread form earlier this year with all the links and conversation about this idea. 

 

So as others have said, the Sun is a complicated systems with lots of conditions and parts, so guessing a Solar cycle just on SSN is a strategy but has proven to be an incomplete method of prediction.  

Just now, hamateur 1953 said:

On 12/16/2023 at 11:50 AM, Archmonoth said:

There is constant effort spent in correlating sunspots with strength of the cycle. The number of spots doesn't necessarily reflect the strength of the flares, since some spots are stronger and more active than others.

 

However, correlation can lead to all kinds of things, and Zharkova was trying hard to predict the Sun. 30 years is a long time for a prediction. We now know more about the variables. The SSN (Smoothed Sunspot Number) is a good place to start, but I don't bet money on any of those predictions. 

 

Methane for example in the atmosphere has terrestrial conditions, Permafrost, biological issues like temperature, pollution, etc. all affect the methane released. Perhaps there is a systemic effect/effects, regarding methane and a connection to Sun activity, but local variables in methane atmospheric concentration have nothing/little to do with the Sun cycles.

 

As far as guessing, I think SC 25 is going to about the same as 23, or within 5% +/- SSN of SC23, and my guess comes from the barycenter location to the Sun. Solar cycles where the barycenter is within the radius of the Sun is generally a lower SSN/activity and higher when the barycenter is outside the radius. So my guess is that flares/spots are turbulence from the conservation of momentum of the Sun. These are not tidal forces (effects of gravity), but conservation of momentum. 

 

Also, there is a connection of the SC and the angular momentum of the solar system, and how the Sun transfer energy to the Spin/rotation of Jupiter/Saturn, which both planets account for 90%+ of the angular momentum in the solar system. Here is a thread form earlier this year with all the links and conversation about this idea. 

 

So as others have said, the Sun is a complicated systems with lots of conditions and parts, so guessing a Solar cycle just on SSN is a strategy but has proven to be an incomplete method of prediction.  

We are getting closer each SC, however.  Real science may triumph in my short lifetime, but it also kinda would take some of the mystery away.  Trying to understand my own spouse would have been futile as I eventually found Haha. I gave up and pursued easier tasks!   🤣🤣

[Philalethes]

21 minutes ago, suppose said:

Some years ago I read a paper on this subject. My impression was that the link was pretty strong:

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014EGUGA..16.1385C/abstract

I did come across that paper when researching it previously while we were discussing this more actively here, and it's certainly interesting, but there are at least a couple of things to unpack that come to my mind:

1. It should be noted that seismic activity isn't the same thing as volcanic activity, even though they might be (and almost certainly are) related in a variety of ways. Indeed the paper seeks to show that most strong eruptions take place during times of lower Solar activity, whereas the weak link I was mentioning is one in which seismic activity tends to be, on average, slightly higher during higher Solar activity, which if true would likely necessitate some other relationship or mechanism (not that we know for sure what the mechanism behind the increase in seismic activity might be, although piezoelectricity as a trigger was mentioned as a possible candidate); it would also mean that the purported claim in the other thread of increased volcanic activity would be contrary to what would be expected.
    
2. I haven't gone through this paper in detail, but superficially it seems like saying the eruptions occur at an SSN of under 46 or near Solar maxima covers a lot of ground, and that maybe it isn't ultimately telling us that much. I'm not sure exactly why that particular SSN was chosen either, or what is considered the margin for temporal proximity to maximum, which might have been arbitrarily selected specifically to show the link (which doesn't necessarily mean this is done fallaciously, but it certainly could be, e.g. in order to demonstrate a link because of wanting it to be there rather than an objective analysis).

All of that being said I'm certainly not dismissing it, just encouraging further research into it, both this paper itself and the claims it makes at large. It's fully possible that there might be a link, although if there is one I would suspect that it's more of a weak association that you mostly find when investigating large sets of data, like with seismic activity.

[Jay-B]

I have read that spring and fall are the best times to see the northern lights. Lately all the really good solar flares have been around 90 degrees to the right of the solar disk which would be center/front of our view during the spring time. I wonder if there is a connection there? Also, Does the gravitational pull of the planets influence sunspots and their flares? kind of like how the moon influences ocean tides here on earth?

[tniickck]

11 minutes ago, Jay-B said:

I have read that spring and fall are the best times to see the northern lights. Lately all the really good solar flares have been around 90 degrees to the right of the solar disk which would be center/front of our view during the spring time. I wonder if there is a connection there? Also, Does the gravitational pull of the planets influence sunspots and their flares? kind of like how the moon influences ocean tides here on earth?

1. Spring and autumn equinoxes are the best times for geomagnetic storm because the Earth is perfectly aligned to the Sun and lets the charged particles easier to penetrate through the magnetic field into the atmosphere and ionize the atoms in it. 

2. planets are too far and incomparably small to make any significant gravitational force to the sun, so the answer is no

@Jay-B you should read all the theory in SpaceWeatherLive —> Help to understand all the processes in the Sun

Edited December 22, 2023 by tniickck

[Philalethes]

2 hours ago, Jay-B said:

I have read that spring and fall are the best times to see the northern lights.

Yep, on average there's more geomagnetic activity around those times due to at least a couple of different effects that have to do with the alignment of the heliomagnetic and the geomagnetic fields.

2 hours ago, Jay-B said:

Lately all the really good solar flares have been around 90 degrees to the right of the solar disk which would be center/front of our view during the spring time. I wonder if there is a connection there?

Not really true; for example, the strong X-flare occurred well within the visible disc.

And no, it's nothing like that which causes more geomagnetic activity to occur near the equinoctes, but as mentioned above it's the alignment between the two fields which leads to a more negative Bz during those times.

2 hours ago, Jay-B said:

Also, Does the gravitational pull of the planets influence sunspots and their flares? kind of like how the moon influences ocean tides here on earth?

Discussion about topics like this is actually one of the reasons this thread was created in the first place. There are some posts mentioning it here, and if you search the forums you might find some of the old topics that were used for it, although it's better to leave them dead and take any further discussion here, but you can always quote them here if there's something in particular you'd like to discuss.

I believe the conclusion we reached for the most part is that tidal effects from the planets are unlikely to have any noticeable effect, and that at best they could serve to synchronize such activity, but so far I haven't found any clear-cut evidence for that either. As @Archmonoth mentioned above there are still hypotheses about effects from the Solar barymetric motion though, which strictly speaking is caused by gravity, but it's important to note that this is not the same thing as tidal forces at all, but the actual acceleration on Sol due to gravity. As quoted in the thread they refer to:

Quote

The accelerations of the solar motion are orders of magnitude larger than the tidal accelerations.

But the extent of such an effect on Solar activity, if it does in fact exist at all, is not clear, nor is the exact mechanism; but it's certainly a topic that should be fair to discuss (at least in my view), as long as it's based on physics and evidence.

2 hours ago, tniickck said:

2. planets are too far and incomparably small to make any significant gravitational force to the sun, so the answer is no

In terms of tidal force that's true, but in terms of actual gravitational force accelerating Sol itself it's certainly enough to cause it to periodically move sufficiently far from the barycenter of the Solar System that the barycenter ends up outside of the Solar surface. I mentioned some of this above, and Archmonoth has looked even more into it, you could always check out the thread he linked to above if you're interested, or discuss it further here.

The vast majority of this acceleration unsurprisingly comes from Jupiter, more than 7.5 times the second largest acceleration (which perhaps a bit more surprisingly is due to Venus, with Saturn and Earth coming in close to each other at third and fourth respectively).

Addendum:

I would actually amend the above and say that despite Venus exerting a larger force than Saturn, and thus causing more acceleration, this does actually not contribute much to the actual Solar motion itself due to the shorter period of its orbit. For the actual Solar motion itself, one has to consider both the acceleration due to gravity as well as the orbital period (or, even more simply, note that the distance of each two-body barycenter is a function of the two masses and just distance between them, rather than the square of the distance), hence why it's still only the gas giants that exert any notable influence on the Solar motion.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Philalethes
addendum

[Archmonoth]

8 hours ago, Jay-B said:

I have read that spring and fall are the best times to see the northern lights. Lately all the really good solar flares have been around 90 degrees to the right of the solar disk which would be center/front of our view during the spring time. I wonder if there is a connection there? Also, Does the gravitational pull of the planets influence sunspots and their flares? kind of like how the moon influences ocean tides here on earth?

I am not sure about the springtime for frequency, but I haven't seen anything. Do you have any links, or studies, or an explanation to describe how springtime for the Earth would have an effect on the Sun? 

 

Gravity is a curvature formed by mass, so the shape of the entire solar system is defined by the total mass of the solar system. The shape of the solar system will have a central point for which all the objects rotate around, this is called the Barycenter: Barycenter (astronomy) - Wikipedia

 

The Barycenter might have an effect on sunspots, but tidal forces (like the Moon's effect on tides) do not. This is because unlike typical flux, it doesn't decrease by a factor of 4 whenever the distance doubles, tidal forces decrease by a factor of 16. (tidal forces are unlikely) 

 

Welcome to the forum. 

Edited December 23, 2023 by Archmonoth

[Philalethes]

7 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

I am not sure about the springtime for frequency, but I haven't seen anything. Do you have any links, or studies, or an explanation to describe how springtime for the Earth would have an effect on the Sun?

As I mentioned above there is a clear connection between geomagnetic activity and the equinoctes, but has nothing to do with Earth affecting Sol, and not with any increase in Solar activity (at least none that's proven); rather it has to do with the alignment of the heliomagnetic and geomagnetic fields, leading to the equinoctial effects and the R-M (Russell-McPherron) effect. See e.g. this paper that we've discussed a few times in different threads, although there's certainly no lack of scientific papers on the topic of space weather that take the existence of such effects as a given, or that explain in more detail why those alignments between the fields lead to increased geomagnetic activity.

Here's also a graph I made last year, plotting the Ap-index against time with the solstices and equinoctes marked, showing the connection very clearly:

Maybe you're well aware of all this and were just doubting the frequency of flares in particular, in which case I would agree, there's no evidence that Solar activity itself is affected by Earth's position in orbit, only that the resulting geomagnetic activity from the activity that already does happen has more or less impact.

7 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

This is because unlike typical flux, it doesn't decrease by a factor of 4 whenever the distance doubles, tidal forces decrease by a factor of 16.

If I'm not entirely mistaken they decrease by 8 if the distance doubles rather than 16; i.e. by the cube of the distance (2^3 = 8). But yeah, the fact that tidal forces drop off that much faster makes tidal forcing very unlikely indeed.

[Archmonoth]

7 hours ago, Philalethes said:

If I'm not entirely mistaken they decrease by 8 if the distance doubles rather than 16; i.e. by the cube of the distance (2^3 = 8). But yeah, the fact that tidal forces drop off that much faster makes tidal forcing very unlikely indeed.

You are correct, I was pulling from memory from the last time you mentioned it, thank you! 

[3gMike]

Patrick has been making claims (in the Growth of Cycle 25 thread)that he can accurately place the solar maximum for any cycle back to 1947 place. I want to use this thread to examine that claim.

Patrick seems to be relying on a relationship between 10.7cm flux and Smoothed Sunspot number - specifically the 2K SSN. That immediately raises a question as to how he can link this to maximum in cycles back to 1947.

Patrick's linked article https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377064732_Calculating_the_Strength_of_Solar_Cycle_25_Using_365-day_Smoothing uses a factor which he describes as 10.7cm divided by 2KSSN producing a factor for this cycle of around 96, so my question to you Patrick is how do you actually produce that number, since a flux of 160 divided by 2KSSN of 272 actually produces a number of 0.588

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

2 uren geleden, 3gMike zei:

Patrick has been making claims (in the Growth of Cycle 25 thread)that he can accurately place the solar maximum for any cycle back to 1947 place. I want to use this thread to examine that claim.

Patrick seems to be relying on a relationship between 10.7cm flux and Smoothed Sunspot number - specifically the 2K SSN. That immediately raises a question as to how he can link this to maximum in cycles back to 1947.

Patrick's linked article https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377064732_Calculating_the_Strength_of_Solar_Cycle_25_Using_365-day_Smoothing uses a factor which he describes as 10.7cm divided by 2KSSN producing a factor for this cycle of around 96, so my question to you Patrick is how do you actually produce that number, since a flux of 160 divided by 2KSSN of 272 actually produces a number of 0.588

Simple. Divide the 365 smoothed averages by each other.

=(SF/SSN-1)*10+100

Edited March 13 by Patrick P.A. Geryl