http://solar.nro.nao.ac.jp/norh/html/introduction.html Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! in motion http://solar.nro.nao.ac.jp/norh/html/10min/2010/03/07/movie.html
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jozsef_Garai Not trying to debunk your link there, but he isn't working in that field. I'm guessing that was written for a class he took. I don't know what you're trying to prove here. That the sunspot cycles could be caused by the alignments of the planets? Ok. That's cool.
This is a discussion about the spin down of pulsars. Based on local dynamics. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121008091556.htm LOL.
This is where Sculptors reference puts himself in the climate change denier column. First sentence. "perceived". How surprising. When are you going to spend some time watching the weather channel? The whole things going to be on tv. https://landscheidt.wordpress.com/2...anus-the-major-players-in-solar-grand-minima/ Quit linking nonsense Sculpter.
But this is about a hypothesis that Kuiper belt objects are destabilised and crash into the sun. Nothing about tidal effects.
Why do you mention gravitational waves? Surely there can be an effect by the massive planets on the sun similar to that of the moon on the Earth, can't there? We don't invoke gravitational waves to explain that, do we? Surely we just use Newtonian gravitational attraction?
Let us consider spin orbit coupling as part of---or, at least in balance with angular momentum. (I'm looking for that report) As you stated An hypothesis But, a darned interesting one from my perspective.
<--------------------------Is Not a "climate change denier"..........never has been one.... (most likely) never will be one. To my understanding, however, the mechanisms of change remain elusive. Agw is also just an hypothesis (with some merit).
The changing sun has been investigated by many, and is still poorly understood. What we do have is observational coincidence, considered by many to be co-relational, and some proposed mechanisms assumed by some to be causal. Unfortunately, almost any proposal/hypothesis that is contrary to prevailing opinion is usually met with a combination of derision and hostility. c'est la vie ?
It would be nice if you could post a link to a reputable source, showing the observational coincidences to which you refer. I, for one, am prepared to entertain the notion, but not on the basis of information from unreliable sources. That is just normal scientific scepticism, i.e. data needs to be reproducible and validated before being relied on for the construction of theories.
perhaps, perhaps not------------they do show waves on the surface of the sun, without going into causality. as/re ergo "hypothesis" In this instance: We cannot control for variables. Our sole tool is observation. Perhaps more observation will lead to the development of specific instrumentation which will enhance observation? You and I will most likely not live to see this resolved. But, darned interesting none the less.
I thought we were talking about tidal effects on the sun from the massive planets. Where are we going now?
Well that is irrelevant, unless a link between those waves and the massive planets is suggested. And it isn't, apparently.
see #13 above as noted, mercury and venus may be involved in spin orbit coupling. ............ hell, we don't even know why venus's spin is retrograde. ................