Research: 11 year solar cycle may be tied to planetary motion

Thank you.

The Sun was there first. It OWNS the frequency!

 

Gravitational acceleration at the Sun due to each planet:

Venus: 2.78x10^-8 m/s^2
Earth: 1.77x10^-8 m/s^2
Jupiter: 2.09x10-7 m/s^2
Saturn: 1.84x10-8 m/s^2

Gravitational acceleration at Sun's visible surface: 274 m/s^2
(the 30% below is where the magnetic dynamo operates)

So the Sun's gravitational acceleration dominates the summed gravitational influence of the other planets (even if aligned) by a factor of 10 billion. This suggests that the planetary influence on the Sun's solar cycle would be negligible. So I'm skeptical of this hypothesis.

Near-Sun influences due to outer planets have been studied, for example one set (#1) of simulations suggest (note *suggest*) that in a billion years or so Mercury could (note *could*) be flung out of orbit. The study also suggests that Mars could be flung out even sooner (40 millions years). My question would be, why hasn't this happened sooner?

Which orbital resonances do exist (note Jupiter's Galilean moons - #2) and Jupiter-sized planets may influence their host star (if they close in proximity - #3)

#1 - https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13757-solar-system-could-go-haywire-before-the-sun-dies/
#2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance (Grudgingly using Wikipedia)
#3 - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3907463/n...ce/t/twist-planet-heats-its-sun/#.XRE9QC2ZOL8

 

Supposedly, a lot of stuff got flung out of the solar system back when it was first forming. The reason everything is in nice, almost circular orbits today is that anything which wasn't got flung out. Read "A Nice model" here:
https://www.space.com/35526-solar-system-formation.html

 

Hogwash... you could throw Jupiter, Earth, and Venus all into the sun and nothing would happen. About a tenth second of burn with Jupiter and it would be over... earth and Venus about 1/1000 of a second and would be complete annihilation.

 

I'm taking a wait and see stance on this. It sounds like BS to me too, but they claim they have a valid physical mechanism.

 

Our star is a binary system. The other star is made up of dark energy so we can't see it.

 

Considering some of you guys measure SWR, I am somewhat taken aback that the notion of a STANDING WAVE in the convection zone (or higher) of the Sun appears beyond your reach.

 

So if the argument is that planets can not influence the Sun in any way, no matter how negligible, then the Moon should not influence the Earth.
So why do we have the Tidal flow on Earth? Based on this, why would the planets not influence the Sun?

Soooo many questions......

If we understood everything, Life would be completely boring.

 

I, for one, did not say that... I'm sure there is some influence.

The hypothesis didn't say that this alignment is the SOLE cause of the 11 year cycle, only pointing out that there is a CORRELATION between the alignment and the cycle.

Bonnie and I seem to think alike... the 11 year cycle is more likely to be the reason that the orbits are what they are. The Sun has had BILLIONS of years to influence those orbits, and it WAS there FIRST!

Look at the difference in scale!

And of course, the reverse is also true, the Earth's influence on the Moon. There would be no Moon orbit were it not for the grav field of the Earth.

 

Is that what the others are thinking?

I believe that they aren't down with the "correlation = causality" crew...

 

The Taylor instability is essentially a standing wave driven by millenia of tiny amplitude perturbations from Jupiter et al.

Add--add-add-add-add-add-add-add-add-add--ad nauseum

 

Any mention of the Milankovitch Cycles and the variations/fluctuations of the solar energy received, just asking.

 

BTW,

I hope everyone understands that the ''11 year' cycle is really, astronomically, a '22 year cycle'.

My latest issue of NATURE ( I am a snail mail subscriber) has an interesting prediction on an impending 'Maunder minimum'.... here's the online link.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

The real question is whether the existing minimum starts coming out of its doldrums in the next 3 years...if not, ham radio as we know it will rapidly fade:-(

I find the present minimum the worst I have seen in 53 years of operating.

FD this year was a shadow of itself. Both from an operator (skill) standpoint and propagation:-(

If the perception within ham radio is that we need to do (almost exclusively)M2M contacts, such as FT4/FT8, based on the chronic poor propagation, you will see major swaths of our spectrum lost by 2026: we won't be using it:-(

 

I am coming from the viewpoint of a younger guy (30) and I only got into ham a few years back, so I haven't experienced the conditions you have. With that said, our field day was by far the best (best as in everyone having a fun time and new operators / kids experiencing radio) we have had since I joined our club 5 years ago. We operated as a 2F station and I personally had around 200 voice contacts in a few hours of operating. I experienced running my first pile up as I usually search and pounce but I decided to call CQ and BAM. That was fun!

The lack of operator skill could be all the new hams on?? We do VE testing and 2019 has seen a big increase in tech and general tests given. I know I had trouble running my pileup, but it was a good learning experience.

 

I am sorry, but this is not the response of an old person telling you how good things were in the 'good ol days'.

Propagation is poor, and that is why , if you turn your radio on after supper, you will find:

1) almost nothing on the CW bands;
2) very little SSB activity;
3) 90% of the QSO's (what few they are) on FT8.

I am truly happy that you are having fun, but the present lack of full-band activity is symptomatic of poor band conditions. The difference THIS cycle is the old demographic of operators means there will be no grand return to crowded bands in the next few years, and having the next MAX be not better than a MIN will clinch the death.

We need new HF ops; we need more Techs on phone, for example.

73
Chip W1YW