Sacha P. Dobler, 2021
Yearly orbital positions of the four Jovian planets (the gas giants) and Pluto were compared to solar activity proxies: to sunspot numbers (SSN) for the past 8650 years and to radio carbon calibration data of the past 12,000 years. Correlation coefficients were calculated between the angular distance of each planet (or accumulated angular distances of several planets) from 12 different orbital positions and the solar activity of the corresponding year.
Weak but very consistent negative correlations were found between the angular distance of Pluto as well as the accumulated angular distances of Neptune and Pluto from the region of 265° ecliptic longitude and the 40-year moving average of Sunspot Number: Sunspot Number increases when either Pluto or both Pluto and Neptune are closer to the 265° position and is lowest when they are closer to the 85° position, with a gradual transition between these points. The relationship is strongest for Pluto observed independently: r= -0.09022, p<10-16.
Smaller correlations are found for the accumulated angular distances of Pluto and Neptune from this position, and correlation coefficients below -0.03 (p< 0.01) were obtained for Neptune when observed independently. No other planet or combination of two or more planets yielded statistically significant correlations r > 0.003.
all raw data as excel spreadsheet:
What you assume is, that our anchient watched star positions in order to know about complex mechanisms like sunspots and related weather phenomina? If the spots change with planet positions, watching planets could indicate spot activity. Until now our specialists are highly convinced that you need something as complex as Stonehenge to find the right date to seed and hunt.
If the megalithic remains try to teach us about larger circles, they are very unsuccessful. If they are built for a purpose in their time we are not able to fgure out. So we have to follow every idea. Thanks for that!
Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune, and Uranus are the stars that were once the Sun. Even today, some of the interstellar medium that enters the solar system is distributed to these past suns. The interstellar medium that is distributed changes depending on the position of each planet. The sunspot cycle is a typical example.
This is fantastic! I don’t remember seeing a Pluto-inclusive solar activity model (other than models that included all planets), albeit my memory is bad and getting worse with age. Angles with respect to the ecliptic I also don’t remember in this context, and few bother to back so far in time. Right or wrong isn’t important – you thought about it (< 1 in 10k scientists ever do), did work, and let the data do the talking. Rare. As usual, you have gone [further, better] than essentially all of the "experts".
I've long thought that [physicist, astronomer]s have long been playing with 2 cut a deck of 52 when looking at potential planetary-induced solar tides etc as "proofs" that the planets cannot affect the Sun. That's even before noticing the complete absence of electro-magnetics eg [electric, plasma] universe concepts which actually work when gravity fails at all scales of astronomy). I do like Paul Charbonneau's paper on the perpetual resurgence of planetary-influence concepts. Every 7-20 years or so it seems that someone notices this :
Paul Charbonneau 2002 "The rise and fall of the first sunspot model" JHA xxxiii Science History Publications Ltd. – Provided by the NASA Astrophysics data system (I have a copy, but not a lifor it – search)
But I take Charbonneau's paper as the conventional gravity view, worth considering but not an answer, and certainly not a proof except for the myopic model it considers.
I won't have time to get into the details beyond my quick scrutiny of your Figures 3 & 4. Maybe if I get back to old projects some day… I wonder if Ben Davidson's profiling of Milky Way current sheets, analogous to Solar system current sheets, might also be worth considering?
LikeLiked by 2 people