Solar Cycle cause

[paddoboy]

There are many references of which solar cycles of sunspots and magnetic poles can be gleaned. The next step is to then analyze why. There is no need for a reference in order to discuss the why's of an observation. That is because "why" is an interpretation while observation is an observation. Are you asking me for references to the data I presented? Or simply trying to imply I am wrong because I dare suggest it without a reference already having suggested it??? Blasphemy!

Your hypothesis of the Sun having a 22 year orbital period around anything is unsupported, unobserved conjecture.
We have had Astronomers since Jan Oort, and instruments such as SOHO and many others gathering plenty of data from the Sun and its orbital and other mechanics.
Which of these probes, or which of these many Astronomers studying the Sun, do you have access to, to have the temerity and audacity to suggest you have found something modern Astronomy has not?

I'm implying that you are wrong, just as every other over confident alternatve proposer suffering the same delusions of grandeur or an agenda, has been wrong, for the reasons I have stated.

 

[sscully]

Your hypothesis of the Sun having a 22 year orbital period around anything is unsupported, unobserved conjecture.
We have had Astronomers since Jan Oort, and instruments such as SOHO and many others gathering plenty of data from the Sun and its orbital and other mechanics.
Which of these probes, or which of these many Astronomers studying the Sun, do you have access to, to have the temerity and audacity to suggest you have found something modern Astronomy has not?

I'm implying that you are wrong, just as every other over confident alternatve proposer suffering the same delusions of grandeur or an agenda, has been wrong, for the reasons I have stated.

I have given you observational evidence directly in support of my theory. Where's yours against it? Beyond your own assumptions and vague references to possible reasons I am wrong that don't have any actual observational basis.

 

[origin]

I have given you observational evidence directly in support of my theory. Where's yours against it? Beyond your own assumptions and vague references to possible reasons I am wrong that don't have any actual observational basis.

Where did you give observational evidence? In the OP?

 

[sscully]

Where did you give observational evidence? In the OP?

Solar cycles are evidence (both the sunspot cycle and the EM field cycle), are you asking for a paper on these subjects? Sprites and ELVES are evidence, are you asking for a paper on these subjects?

 

[origin]

Solar cycles are evidence (both the sunspot cycle and the EM field cycle), are you asking for a paper on these subjects? Sprites and ELVES are evidence, are you asking for a paper on these subjects?

No. Solar cycles exist. The magnetic field of the sun flips (not EM). Sprites exist. However, none of this is evidence that supports your conjecture. Your conjecture is demonstrably wrong.

I would like to see some evidence in particular that the sun is orbiting a massive body every 22 years. You realize that it would be obvious if this was true and would be seen by many different methods. The conjecture is absurd. But if you have evidence then please present it, because just making a unsubstantiated claims is not even close to what science is about.

 

[sscully]

No. Solar cycles exist. The magnetic field of the sun flips (not EM). Sprites exist. However, none of this is evidence that supports your conjecture. Your conjecture is demonstrably wrong.

I would like to see some evidence in particular that the sun is orbiting a massive body every 22 years. You realize that it would be obvious if this was true and would be seen by many different methods. The conjecture is absurd. But if you have evidence then please present it, because just making a unsubstantiated claims is not even close to what science is about.

There is no other logical explanation for the cycles; they must be related to an orbit due to it being an observed cycle which is necessarily the result of variation in the distance from a source of energy. If not a planet (no planet can switch the sun's poles, and papers have demonstrated this is not the cause), if not the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way (11 year cycles don't make sense as a result of an orbit that is far longer than that), then WHAT ORBIT? The observations are all the evidence necessary to realize this fact. I am not forcing this to be, it just must be so given the observations. This is why I said it must be a "black hole", because we do not observe its light easily. I'm sorry you don't realize that, but it doesn't mean it is insufficient evidence of it.

 

[AlexG]

There is no other logical explanation for the cycles

IOW, I don't know so I'll just make it up. It seems right in my head, so it must be correct.

 

[sscully]

IOW, I don't know so I'll just make it up. It seems right in my head, so it must be correct.

What's your fundamental explanation for how I'm wrong? I'm listening. All theories which find support in evidence are "It seems right in my head, so it must be correct". That isn't an argument. Do you think the Big Bang is any different?? Observations are made and INTERPRETATIONS are then made. This is the process of cosmology, where we conclude based on evidence what SEEMS RIGHT. Give EVIDENCE to show the wrongness or don't speak ignorantly simply because you THINK you know something.

 

[AlexG]

What's your fundamental explanation for how I'm wrong?

There is no evidence of any orbital perturbation. Cranks are always saying 'prove me wrong'. It's their motto.

 

[sscully]

There is no evidence of any orbital perturbation. Cranks are always saying 'prove me wrong'. It's their motto.

Solar cycles are not evidence? please elaborate. I'd LOVE to hear your LOGIC OF WHY. Otherwise, you are just blindly speaking. WHY do solar cycles happen, if not an orbit? Lets hear your LOGICAL RETORT. Because the sun just operates that way on its own? Is this your thought????

 

[origin]

There is no other logical explanation for the cycles;

False.

they must be related to an orbit due to it being an observed cycle which is necessarily the result of variation in the distance from a source of energy.

False.

If not a planet (no planet can switch the sun's poles, and papers have demonstrated this is not the cause), if not the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way (11 year cycles don't make sense as a result of an orbit that is far longer than that), then WHAT ORBIT?

A black hole would not cause the suns poles to switch. There is no orbit and no black hole. If there was we would detect it.
Do you know what the orbit period of neptune is? it is 164 years! Can your mind grasp the problem of having the sun orbit a black hole every 22 years and yet one of the planets in the solar system orbits the sun every 164 years. Think long and hard and see if you can find a flaw in you thinking.

The observations are all the evidence necessary to realize this fact.

The only fact that you have shown is that your idea is completely absurd and demonstrates that you haven't even a scintilla of knowledge about cosmology.

I am not forcing this to be, it just must be so given the observations. This is why I said it must be a "black hole", because we do not observe its light easily. I'm sorry you don't realize that, but it doesn't mean it is insufficient evidence of it.

You are just embarassing yourself now.

 

[AlexG]

Solar cycles are not evidence?

Of a perturbed orbit? No, they're not.

 

[sscully]

False.

Good answer.

False.

Good answer.

A black hole would not cause the suns poles to switch. There is no orbit and no black hole. If there was we would detect it.
Do you know what the orbit period of neptune is? it is 164 years! Can your mind grasp the problem of having the sun orbit a black hole every 22 years and yet one of the planets in the solar system orbits the sun every 164 years. Think long and hard and see if you can find a flaw in you thinking.

Please explain how we would necessarily have detected a black hole we weren't looking for.

Yes, I am aware of the orbit of outer planets and I do not have an explanation for the short period, but that DOES NOT MEAN IT IS WRONG. Once more, NO OTHER ORBIT FITS TO PRODUCE THE OBSERVATION. Give me some reason why it is not produced by an orbit. Prove me wrong, don't just disregard what I say because of your preconceptions. This forum is so close-minded and ignorant.

The observations are all the evidence necessary to realize this fact.
The only fact that you have shown is that your idea is completely absurd and demonstrates that you haven't even a scintilla of knowledge about cosmology.


You are just embarassing yourself now.

"The observations are all evidence." Go on. You can't just say that as if it means something. You realize you've made absolutely no argument against my claim except your own beliefs. What is your explanation for solar cycles that fits better than mine? Let's hear it, even if it be what the public believes. Don't just spout your beliefs without actual retort, they are meaningless. You can THINK what you want of me, but I don't care what image you have of me, I am here solely to enlighten people who actually care to open their minds. If you are just going to ignorantly respond wtih no actual reason for your disagreement, then I am going to go ahead and refrain from further communication and stop wasting my time with you. You will learn the truth when the rest learn.

 

[sscully]

Of a perturbed orbit? No, they're not.

Good answer.

 

[paddoboy]

The onus is on you to show your reasoning to be more predicitve and observationally supported then the Incumbent model.
Now a question I asked earlier and which you avoided answering, What solar Instrument, or any scientific instrument for that matter, do you have access to to support your 22 year orbital period nonsense?

There are many probable reasons for solar cycles, and the fact of the matter is a lot of it is being discussed and researched at this time, with the data streaming in from SOHO and other scientific probes.
Some thinking concerns tidal gravitational effects of the gaseous giants.

Finally I suggest if you have any evidence to support your claim, that is not explained by more "Occam's razor" reasons, then get it properly peer reviewed.
The Nobel may be yours this year, although you do have stiff competition with chinglu, Farsight, undefined, Sywlester and possibly a few others that have claimed to have a ToE.
I wish you all the best of luck [tic mode on of course]

 

[matthew809]

WHY do solar cycles happen, if not an orbit?

I agree that solar cycles are most likely caused by an extrasolar influence. But orbits are not the only things which can cause cycles. Waves could have such an effect and seem to be a more likely cause to me.

 

[sscully]

I agree that solar cycles are most likely caused by an extrasolar influence. But orbits are not the only things which can cause cycles. Waves could have such an effect and seem to be a more likely cause to me.

What types of waves? I'm open to other options, but it seems to me like an orbit is the most likely possibility. Could you give some examples of how waves could cause such observations? Especially the flipping of the poles. This is why I bring up sprites and ELVES corresponding to sunspots; to show it must be related to energy the sun receives from its own "sun", since sprites and ELVES form more readily at higher energy content areas (equator); much the same, sunspots must occur in the same manner (although time dilation across levels of existence is different so we observe them much longer than sprites/ELVES exist).

 

[sscully]

The onus is on you to show your reasoning to be more predicitve and observationally supported then the Incumbent model.
Now a question I asked earlier and which you avoided answering, What solar Instrument, or any scientific instrument for that matter, do you have access to to support your 22 year orbital period nonsense?

I avoided answering it, as you put it, because it is totally irrelevant. Explain to me how seeing someone else's observations is insufficient for then interpreting them my own way?

There are many probable reasons for solar cycles, and the fact of the matter is a lot of it is being discussed and researched at this time, with the data streaming in from SOHO and other scientific probes.
Some thinking concerns tidal gravitational effects of the gaseous giants.

Finally I suggest if you have any evidence to support your claim, that is not explained by more "Occam's razor" reasons, then get it properly peer reviewed.
The Nobel may be yours this year, although you do have stiff competition with chinglu, Farsight, undefined, Sywlester and possibly a few others that have claimed to have a ToE.
I wish you all the best of luck [tic mode on of course]

That's the plan, love. Still working on my paper, as there is far more than the Theory of Everything as a result of understanding the operations of the universe. Regardless of what others may think of my Newton fascination in another thread...

 

[paddoboy]

I avoided answering it, as you put it, because it is totally irrelevant. Explain to me how seeing someone else's observations is insufficient for then interpreting them my own way?

No, far from being irrelevant, it gives necessary data to cosmologists that are Interested in why, how and when, and certainly not burdened in any way by some religious agenda, or some revengeful childish urge to show science is wrong at all costs.
Again, despite your supposed work, the Sun and its system, orbits the MW galaxy about once in every 225 million years.
If there was any other shorter orbital period, that would be fairly easy to show, with the advanced instrumentation available...the same instrumentation you happen to find irrelevant.

That's the plan, love. Still working on my paper, as there is far more than the Theory of Everything as a result of understanding the operations of the universe. Regardless of what others may think of my Newton fascination in another thread...

Telling lies, and making ridiculious comments, just shows how worthless your claims are.
Let me make a few points.
[1] You do not have a paper, scientific or otherwise:
[2] You know next to nothing about the Universe and its known operations:
[3] Your God, your Church, and your beliefs are no more than unsupported mythical stories from an age long gone, and the bible is an obscure book of fairy tales, written by obscure men, in an obscure age.
[4]And my dear friend, if it wasn't for science and its discoveries and revelations, you,and all of us would still be swinging in the trees from whence we climbed out of a long time ago.
[5] Newton like Galileo before him, were great scientists, unlucky enough to be born in a tyrannical age, bullied by the worst tyrant the world has ever seen, that being the church.

 

[sscully]

No, far from being irrelevant, it gives necessary data to cosmologists that are Interested in why, how and when, and certainly not burdened in any way by some religious agenda, or some revengeful childish urge to show science is wrong at all costs.
Again, despite your supposed work, the Sun and its system, orbits the MW galaxy about once in every 225 million years.
If there was any other shorter orbital period, that would be fairly easy to show, with the advanced instrumentation available...the same instrumentation you happen to find irrelevant.

Please elaborate on how that would be "fairly easy to show". Yes, if the star's light was observed visibly then we would certainly have spotted a star that seems to orbit us. However, if it is not visible to us due to its mass, then it is quite reasonable that it could go unnoticed over time, without us actively looking for it. There is NO REASON to believe what you are saying besides your fallible assumptions.

Telling lies, and making ridiculious comments, just shows how worthless your claims are.
Let me make a few points.
[1] You do not have a paper, scientific or otherwise:
[2] You know next to nothing about the Universe and its known operations:
[3] Your God, your Church, and your beliefs are no more than unsupported mythical stories from an age long gone, and the bible is an obscure book of fairy tales, written by obscure men, in an obscure age.
[4]And my dear friend, if it wasn't for science and its discoveries and revelations, you,and all of us would still be swinging in the trees from whence we climbed out of a long time ago.
[5] Newton like Galileo before him, were great scientists, unlucky enough to be born in a tyrannical age, bullied by the worst tyrant the world has ever seen, that being the church.

You know nothing, Jon Snow.