Unproven theories

[3gMike]

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

Simple. Divide the 365 smoothed averages by each other.

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

Really? Let us test that formula using the 365d smoothed values displayed on Jan Alvestad's website.

For the day marked as current solar max 10.7cm flux is 158 and SSN is 276

Applying your formula we get (158/276-1)*10+100 = (0.575)*10+100 = 105.75 which does not match the numbers in your document.

If we apply the same formula to the plot for Cycle 24 peak (Jun 2014) we get (145/246-1)=0.592*10+100 = 105 92, which is fairly similar.

If I choose a random point in Cycle 24 (23/04/2013) we get (116/170-1) = 0.686*10+100 = 106.86

So for now let me ask two questions - 

1. Why is 1 subtracted from SSN ?

2. What is the expected range for your factor to indicate maximum?

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

13 minuten geleden, 3gMike zei:

Really? Let us test that formula using the 365d smoothed values displayed on Jan Alvestad's website.

For the day marked as current solar max 10.7cm flux is 158 and SSN is 276

Applying your formula we get (158/276-1)*10+100 = (0.575)*10+100 = 105.75 which does not match the numbers in your document.

If we apply the same formula to the plot for Cycle 24 peak (Jun 2014) we get (145/246-1)=0.592*10+100 = 105 92, which is fairly similar.

If I choose a random point in Cycle 24 (23/04/2013) we get (116/170-1) = 0.686*10+100 = 106.86

So for now let me ask two questions - 

1. Why is 1 subtracted from SSN ?

2. What is the expected range for your factor to indicate maximum?

minus multiplied with 10 = minus. Basic math. Fill in in excell before you start asking such a basic problem please.

1. Why is 1 subtracted from SSN ? It is explained in my previous article. Since nobody funds me, I cannot pay for open access.

Same for this article.

 

Edited March 13 by Patrick P.A. Geryl

[3gMike]

31 minutes ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

minus multiplied with 10 = minus. Basic math. Fill in in excell before you start asking such a basic problem please.

1. Why is 1 subtracted from SSN ? It is explained in my previous article. Since nobody funds me, I cannot pay for open access.

Same for this article.

 

Patrick, Please do not be so dismissive ! I am attempting to understand your theory. I used the formula exactly as you wrote it.  In that form it does not produce a negative number. The factors you produced in your document were not negative numbers . Did you perhaps mean it to be (((SF/SSN)-1)*10)+100?  Yes, I do understand that this is effectively the same as you wrote, if you assume that multiplication or division takes priority over addition or subtraction. I prefer to use brackets to make it absolutely clear what is intended. No room for error then.

In that case we now have numbers for cycle 25 - 158/276 = 0.573 - 1 = -0.428 *10 = -4.28+100 = 95.725 which is close to your figure.

So now,  I still want to know what would be the allowable range for this value to indicate maximum.

[Jesterface23]

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

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

What formula do you use prior to the 2K sunspot numbers? And what sunspot number source do you use going back to the mid-1900s?

[hamateur 1953]

54 minutes ago, Jesterface23 said:

What formula do you use prior to the 2K sunspot numbers? And what sunspot number source do you use going back to the mid-1900s?

This is a very important point.  When using available data, it is proper in science to state specifically what data or datasets were used in any formulas. Simply assuming that any reader will know what you happen to be using is going to practically illustrate your lack of caution.  

Edited March 13 by hamateur 1953

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

7 minuten geleden, hamateur 1953 zei:

 

 

1 uur terug, Jesterface23 zei:

What formula do you use prior to the 2K sunspot numbers? And what sunspot number source do you use going back to the mid-1900s?

We go back to 1947. This was accepted.... Solar cycle starts on 1 day!

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342548883_Solar_Cycle_25_Started_on_November_17_2019_with_365_Days_Smoothing

[hamateur 1953]

Not a bad answer. However it is incomplete.  Answer @Jesterface23in full please.  And you have essentially ignored @3gMike entirely 

Edited March 13 by hamateur 1953

[Jesterface23]

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

We go back to 1947. This was accepted.... Solar cycle starts on 1 day!

I mean more of the source of your data. Did you use WDC-SILSO daily numbers prior to 2003 or some other answer?

[Jesterface23]

@Patrick P.A. Geryl

If there are other variations of (SF/SSN-1)*10+100 for the other daily sunspot number counts, that would be useful as well. Unless that is used for everything

[hamateur 1953]

Who exactly are “we”.??   Btw. I believe that this other question was never replied to, unless I missed it during my searches of our archives.   We all wait…. Today is March 15 2024  one day so far no replies yet from @Patrick P.A. Geryl   And as we enter the weekend now in the USA March 16 2024 @Jesterface23 appears to have plotted cycle 24 using @Patrick P.A. Geryl formula, which I find interesting.   I care less about the “we” issue than these other gentlemen and care more about a reasonable interaction, so I would prefer he reply to them first BTW.   It is interesting to me, in that for SC 24, it seems to ignore the first lower peak entirely.   I wonder what the SC 24 10.7 plot would look like independently?  I have never bothered to look at it TBH. 

Edited March 16 by hamateur 1953
Punctuation updates. More speculation

[Jesterface23]

@Patrick P.A. Geryl

Okay, so this should be the resulted chart from =(SF/SSN-1)*10+100 using the available 2K imagery. Where can we go from here?

[hamateur 1953]

I would say I see at least one very big problem on checking SC 24.  Solar Maximum was declared in April of 2014.  10.7  solar flux appears to me to have been around 145 maximum a month earlier.   Assuming that we are actually looking at the results as plotted for SC 24, that is.  

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

3 uren geleden, hamateur 1953 zei:

I would say I see at least one very big problem on checking SC 24.  Solar Maximum was declared in April of 2014.  10.7  solar flux appears to me to have been around 145 maximum a month earlier.   Assuming that we are actually looking at the results as plotted for SC 24, that is.  

see for the right values the above link
 

‘We’ The answer is in the above link😉

8 uren geleden, Jesterface23 zei:

@Patrick P.A. Geryl

Okay, so this should be the resulted chart from =(SF/SSN-1)*10+100 using the available 2K imagery. Where can we go from here?

Sorry, bad chart. Try again.

Edited March 16 by Patrick P.A. Geryl

[hamateur 1953]

Well that was pretty brief!  Dismissive without any normal, respectful interchange.  Is this going to continue?    
 Bad chart try again??? Precisely what was “ Bad “ about it? please@Patrick P.A. Geryl.  And as I indicated above, I care more about a respectful interchange of ideas here than who your associates may be.  Please stop being rude to these gentlemen, they have treated you so far with respect, it is only natural human nature to respond in a like manner.  

On 3/13/2024 at 7:00 AM, 3gMike said:

Patrick, Please do not be so dismissive ! I am attempting to understand your theory. I used the formula exactly as you wrote it.  In that form it does not produce a negative number. The factors you produced in your document were not negative numbers . Did you perhaps mean it to be (((SF/SSN)-1)*10)+100?  Yes, I do understand that this is effectively the same as you wrote, if you assume that multiplication or division takes priority over addition or subtraction. I prefer to use brackets to make it absolutely clear what is intended. No room for error then.

In that case we now have numbers for cycle 25 - 158/276 = 0.573 - 1 = -0.428 *10 = -4.28+100 = 95.725 which is close to your figure.

So now,  I still want to know what would be the allowable range for this value to indicate maximum.

 

On 3/13/2024 at 8:33 AM, Jesterface23 said:

What formula do you use prior to the 2K sunspot numbers? And what sunspot number source do you use going back to the mid-1900s?

 

 

Edited March 16 by hamateur 1953

[Jesterface23]

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

Sorry, bad chart. Try again.

Is the data to be used daily 10.7 flux and daily 2K sunspot numbers that are both 365 day smoothed?

Edited March 16 by Jesterface23

[3gMike]

2 hours ago, Jesterface23 said:

Is the data to be used daily 10.7 flux and daily 2K sunspot numbers that are both 365 day smoothed?

It is really difficult to get a sensible answer from Patrick.

According to the document he linked earlier the factors are calculated on the basis of 365 day smoothed values.  It also looks like he uses the same formula for both 1K and 2K SSN. (based on values from the graph on Jan's Solen website)

However, if you check section 7.0 of Patrick's document he gives changing values of the factor for dates in June and July based on measurements at end of August through to end of November, so it is difficult to see how he was using 365 day smoothing.

It is worth noting that the factors for Cycle 24 do not match those for Cycle 25, and the factors for 1K shift by a different ratio to those for 2K.

It is not entirely clear how these factors define maximum. In section 7.0 Patrick states that June was chosen as max. for 2K since it produced a smaller factor. A reducing factor is generated if 10.7cm flux drops, or SSN rises, but since 2K SSN produces a larger value than does 10.7cm flux (roughly 270 vs 160) the factor will reduce more for each unit of 10.7 than it does for a unit of SSN. Although Patrick has indicated that measurements early in the cycle indicate an ability to predict exact maximum value and date nowhere does he describe how that works.

Patrick seems to differentiate between a factor of 95.773 July factor (end Nov) and 95.741 June factor (end Nov) - a change of 0.033% !! This is roughly equivalent to a change of 1 count in 10.7cm flux or 2 counts for 2K SSN.

The situation for 1K SSN is different since in June that was around 180 giving a factor around 98.89 and a change of around 0.06% for a single count of 10.7cm flux.

I struggle to see how any of this is going to allow prediction of solar max.

[hamateur 1953]

I have a question if you guys don’t object too much….  Was I actually incorrect in assuming that @Jesterface23 was using his formula  against cycle 24 to see how well it worked with a known cycle?  That was just an assumption on my part TBH.  Tnx. Mike   
It also seems a bit strange to me that Jan posted a prediction of Nov 2023 some ten months in advance of about 142 monthly mean as the predicted Solar Max date and @Patrick P.A. Geryl announced the passing of Solar Maximum in January 2023 or early February if my memory serves me correctly here.  I had assumed that Jan and him were working together prior to that declaration. 

Edited March 17 by hamateur 1953
Clarification of PG year and month of first declaration

[Jesterface23]

26 minutes ago, hamateur 1953 said:

I have a question if you guys don’t object too much….  Was I actually incorrect in assuming that @Jesterface23 was using his formula  against cycle 24 to see how well it worked with a known cycle?  That was just an assumption on my part TBH.  Tnx. Mike

It was his formula using all currently available 2K sunspot numbers, so it only starts about half way through solar cycle 24. The x-axis is YYYYMMDD. I am using a data source for the 10.7 flux that he has used in the past, http://www.wdcb.ru/stp/data/solar.act/flux10.7/daily/DAILYPLT.adj. Though it only goes to December 19th, 2023, so I plotted too many days and the last 72 days aren't 100% perfect with the 365 day average.

[hamateur 1953]

Thanx Jester. 

I have another question for @Patrick P.A. Geryl   It’s long and somewhat tedious, so please bear with me as I try to pose this as respectfully as possible.  We all speculate, that’s what we seem to do with our imaginations. I will leave the mathematics entirely out of this for the time being,  This is a high-stakes game of speculation, I am fully appreciative of that fact.  However without a reasonable concept, you and everyone else involved with your research are very unlikely to receive anything but disdain if you fail to state your concepts in a clearly thought out statement or abstract at the very least.  And along with the abstract demonstrating why you believe it has physical applicability.   (More of a suggestion than a question, I suppose, on second thought) 

Edited March 17 by hamateur 1953

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

11 uren geleden, hamateur 1953 zei:

Thanx Jester. 

I have another question for @Patrick P.A. Geryl   It’s long and somewhat tedious, so please bear with me as I try to pose this as respectfully as possible.  We all speculate, that’s what we seem to do with our imaginations. I will leave the mathematics entirely out of this for the time being,  This is a high-stakes game of speculation, I am fully appreciative of that fact.  However without a reasonable concept, you and everyone else involved with your research are very unlikely to receive anything but disdain if you fail to state your concepts in a clearly thought out statement or abstract at the very least.  And along with the abstract demonstrating why you believe it has physical applicability.   (More of a suggestion than a question, I suppose, on second thought) 

I already gave you all relevant information. I repeat again:

1. I have found the complete sunspot theory. It is as good as LINEAR. Everything that we know can be calculated with it!

(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
 

2. The sunspots and 10.7 Solar flux are created from the polar fields. Hence a direct relation exists between the 10.7 flux and sunspots. Only the 2KSSN can be used. Therefore I am hundred percent sure that Solar max has passed.

(PDF) Polar Field Strength = 10.7 cm Solar Radio Flux?


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348686960_Polar_Field_Strength_107_cm_Solar_Radio_Flux

3. I will upload a prediction for next month: 2 huge sunspots are coming….

Remember: The most violent sunspots come on the downslope of the cycle!

 

 

 

[Jesterface23]

14 minutes ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

3. I will upload a prediction for next month: 2 huge sunspots are coming….

Remember: The most violent sunspots come on the downslope of the cycle!

*First cycle peak decline? We are still a long ways before the final decline.

[hamateur 1953]

4 hours ago, Jesterface23 said:

*First cycle peak decline? We are still a long ways before the final decline.

Perhaps he doesn’t understand that many cycles have two peaks, for example cycle 24 had a second much higher peak.  Of course there is a relationship.  All activity from the sun is interrelated in some way.  Well. @Patrick P.A. Geryl  you will have to try again.  Please try to be more respectful here.  We aren’t able to read your mind(s) only infer what you might possibly be thinking.   And as for a prediction? That is easy. We are on the final rise to Solar Max currently, activity currently is down naturally and the full reversal is still pending. Even I am aware of this, and field theory is quite new to this geezer.  

 

.  I’m a patient man. 

And as far as the fact that most of the larger and more violent active regions occur on the final downslopes?  @Vancanneyt Sander has stated this simple fact in several pages here.  Plus this was a known fact for some time to me since Aug fourth 1972 when region  Mcmath 11976 hit the earth with the fastest CME recorded thus far.  Sure, it could happen anytime, however it is physically more likely to occur when the region latitudes are lower with respect to the earth.  Just my two cents here. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_1972_solar_storms   For others reading the above this wiki gives some truly amazing facts loosely related to the topic at hand 

Edited March 17 by hamateur 1953
Removed Hagrid. He bit me again. Stupid cat.

[hamateur 1953]

https://www.stce.be/content/sc25-tracking    I think I finally after over a year or so of trying to understand exactly what Patrick is attempting to explain here that he is assuming that because the tiny admittedly short-lived spots began to decline in Jans charts of the 2k representation, that this somehow represents Solar maximum.  Interesting, but, like us all we must wait a few years to see how it eventually plays out.  Mike.   Btw. I visited STCE last night to view their prognostications.  They expect a higher second peak to occur this coming fall  (in the event anyone hasn’t read their latest.)    Mike.   If you guys @3gMike and @Jesterface23 are struggling, imagine me!  Haha. 
I looked at Jan’s most recent and everything to me anyway clearly  indicates the drop across the board in every category.  To me, this shouldn’t surprise anyone I would imagine, especially as activity is resuming again as we head toward a likely second peak. 
It will likely resume its previous sawtooth climb, I feel.  Probably with another drop across the board before Solar Maximum really arrives.  Mike 

Edited March 20 by hamateur 1953
STCE and link at top + further thoughts

[IDNeon]

On 3/23/2023 at 1:51 PM, Archmonoth said:

Ill bite, and consider myself a skeptic. 

First off, the effect you described: Piezoelectricity - Wikipedia

To me the strong correlation from the link/study would imply that the Earthquakes might the cause of the increased charged protons, since the SOHO is L1 near the Earth. The Piezoelectric effect would cause the protons to charge from the release of M>5.6 quakes. 

 

The reason for this suggested cause, is because the established knowledge of earthquakes is from local (non-solar) systems like the movement of mantle, tectonic plates and such. So, I would guess that the charged protons would become charged from the nearby (closer) phenomena of the quakes rather than solar activity. I didn't see anything in the study/link you provided with a correlation to solar weather like flares, CMEs or Coronal holes. Maybe I missed it, and this is just my skeptical speculation on the correlation. 

 

 

Opinions presented as fact can rub people the wrong way. 

The question you raise can be easily solved if: the proton density precedes the correlated earthquakes.
The question is a little more challenging if that is not the case; but can still be ruled out as originating from the earthquakes if we measure the speed of the proton and the time between the earthquake and the proton-event.

Lastly the sensor is likely "directionally biased" and that can be used to further refine the dataset.

Edited March 18 by IDNeon

[hamateur 1953]

Hey @IDNeon if ya wish @Archmonoth to weigh in on that tag him by hitting the at thing ampersand I believe it is called.  We typically only follow the threads we enjoy and since these are unproven theories this thread is typically inactive.  Good luck. Mike.  You will see a selection come up, hit @Archmonoth good to go.  Anyway he will see it now. Handy thing btw 

Edited March 18 by hamateur 1953
Tagging members.