Asteriods deflected to Sun by Jupiter and Saturn.

Hi guys.
Awhile back I studied an interesting hypothesis about Sunspot cycles.
The 11 and 22 year cycle sync'd with the orbital periods of Jupiter
and
Saturn.
In turn those deflected asteriods into the Sun which causes Sunspots
to appear, rather like craters on a star...Sun craters.
Anyone else ever study that?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On Sep 29, 2:01*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Hi guys.
Awhile back I studied an interesting hypothesis about Sunspot cycles.
The 11 and 22 year cycle sync'd with the orbital periods of Jupiter
and
Saturn.
In turn those deflected asteriods into the Sun which causes Sunspots
to appear, rather like craters on a star...Sun craters.
Anyone else ever study that?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Well, I think it is pretty well established just what causes
sunspots...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspots

,,, and I don't see anything there about asteroids... just where did
you find this hypothesis?



\Paul A

On Sep 29, 3:01*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Awhile back I studied an interesting hypothesis about Sunspot cycles.
The 11 and 22 year cycle sync'd with the orbital periods of Jupiter
and
Saturn.
In turn those deflected asteriods into the Sun which causes Sunspots
to appear, rather like craters on a star...Sun craters.
Anyone else ever study that?

What did you find out when you studied that idea?

John Savard

On Sep 29, 2:41 pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sep 29, 3:01 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Awhile back I studied an interesting hypothesis about Sunspot cycles.
The 11 and 22 year cycle sync'd with the orbital periods of Jupiter
and
Saturn.
In turn those deflected asteriods into the Sun which causes Sunspots
to appear, rather like craters on a star...Sun craters.
Anyone else ever study that?

What did you find out when you studied that idea?
John Savard

While complex, the hypothesis is quite viable.
Unfortunately, there is little data on the density of the asteroid
belt and
less knowledge about the effect of asteroid impacts on solar
climatology,
which in turn has a gross effect on Earths climatology (neglecting the
new
fad of cow farts causes global warming ;-).
The solar impacts themselves re-align the magnet signature, it's the
causal,
in the hypothesis, sounds ok to me.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:30:31 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
wrote:

While complex, the hypothesis is quite viable.

I don't think so.

Unfortunately, there is little data on the density of the asteroid
belt...

Actually, that is extremely well established.

... and
less knowledge about the effect of asteroid impacts on solar
climatology,

Also well known. No effect at all. The Sun is constantly pelted by
asteroids and comets, and no observed impacts have produced any
visible or measurable effect. And there is no theoretical basis for
assuming there would be- the kinetic energy of an asteroid or comet
impact is infinitesimal compared with the energies observed in sunspot
regions.

In fact, the mechanism behind sunspots is rather well understood in
general terms, even if there are many details that remain unknown.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:30:31 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
wrote:

While complex, the hypothesis is quite viable.

I don't think so.

Unfortunately, there is little data on the density of the asteroid
belt...

Actually, that is extremely well established.

... and
less knowledge about the effect of asteroid impacts on solar
climatology,

Also well known. No effect at all. The Sun is constantly pelted by
asteroids and comets,

I didn't know that. Where can I find out more about this?


and no observed impacts have produced any
visible or measurable effect.

He claims they cause sunspots. These are both visible and measurable.

And there is no theoretical basis for
assuming there would be- the kinetic energy of an asteroid or comet
impact is infinitesimal compared with the energies observed in sunspot
regions.


He said nothing about kinetic energy. There are far more plausible
mechanisms; the elements found in asteroids are very different to those
usually found in the photosphere, and their ionised forms could have very
different electrical and hence magnetic propoerties.



In fact, the mechanism behind sunspots is rather well understood in
general terms, even if there are many details that remain unknown.


It isn't known at all, and the current best theories have some problems.

The main problem (in my opinion) is the very great regularity shown by the
sunspot cycle. The purported mechanism relies on a dynamo effect, the same
as causes changes to the earth's magnetic field. However, the record of
magnetic reversals on earth does not show anything like the regular periodic
behaviour observed in the sunspot cycle.

I do not believe that comets and asteroids affect the sunspot cycle, but nor
have I seen any explanation for why it has a fixed period of 11 years whilst
still showing considerable variation in its amplitude. This theory does at
least address these two observations, for which there is currently no
explanation, even if it has other problems.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:53:53 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Also well known. No effect at all. The Sun is constantly pelted by
asteroids and comets,

I didn't know that. Where can I find out more about this?

Ever seen the SOHO data?

He claims they cause sunspots. These are both visible and measurable.

He claims. Exactly. Without any observational evidence or theoretical
basis. If I claim that porpoise farts cause tsunamis, does it become a
viable theory because tsunamis are observable?

What HAS been observed is large bodies crashing into the Sun. And in
no case has a sunspot ever been produced.

He said nothing about kinetic energy. There are far more plausible
mechanisms; the elements found in asteroids are very different to those
usually found in the photosphere, and their ionised forms could have very
different electrical and hence magnetic propoerties.

The elements found in asteroids are the same as those found in the
Sun. The ionized forms of those elements are well known and their
behavior is understood.

In fact, the mechanism behind sunspots is rather well understood in
general terms, even if there are many details that remain unknown.


It isn't known at all, and the current best theories have some problems.

Surprise. Yet another area of science you know absolutely nothing
about.

The main problem (in my opinion) is the very great regularity shown by the
sunspot cycle. The purported mechanism relies on a dynamo effect, the same
as causes changes to the earth's magnetic field. However, the record of
magnetic reversals on earth does not show anything like the regular periodic
behaviour observed in the sunspot cycle.

That's because the mechanisms are different. The Sun is a vastly
simpler system than the Earth. We can directly observe how its
magnetic field becomes increasingly twisted by differential rotation.
No such situation exists with the Earth.

I do not believe that comets and asteroids affect the sunspot cycle, but nor
have I seen any explanation for why it has a fixed period of 11 years whilst
still showing considerable variation in its amplitude.

The periodicity of the sunspot cycle (which is actually a 22 year
cycle, not 11) is pretty well understood. It is hard to see how you
could have missed seeing an explanation if you had actually ever
looked.

On 30/09/2011 04:53, Peter Webb wrote:

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:30:31 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
wrote:

While complex, the hypothesis is quite viable.

I don't think so.

Unfortunately, there is little data on the density of the asteroid
belt...

Actually, that is extremely well established.

... and
less knowledge about the effect of asteroid impacts on solar
climatology,

Also well known. No effect at all. The Sun is constantly pelted by
asteroids and comets,

I didn't know that. Where can I find out more about this?

Watch the movies on SOHO. Some of the more famous sungrazing comets
reports seen in the pre-satellite era were only believed because very
experienced observers saw them close to the sun one evening and they
were never seen again. These days SOHO catches most of them and keen
amateurs scour these data for serendipitous discoveries of sungrazers.

There is a whole website devoted to the best ones found to date and
advice on how to find new ones.

http://sungrazer.nrl.navy.mil/

There is of course no correlation at all between these events and
sunspots no matter what the netkook Ken may claim.

The Kreutz group of sungrazers are about the most common - short article
on Wiki describing the most famous historical observations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreutz_Sungrazers


and no observed impacts have produced any
visible or measurable effect.

He claims they cause sunspots. These are both visible and measurable.

And he is a dittohead liar with no understanding of physics.

And there is no theoretical basis for
assuming there would be- the kinetic energy of an asteroid or comet
impact is infinitesimal compared with the energies observed in sunspot
regions.


He said nothing about kinetic energy. There are far more plausible
mechanisms; the elements found in asteroids are very different to those
usually found in the photosphere, and their ionised forms could have
very different electrical and hence magnetic propoerties.

You really do enjoy clutching at rightard straws don't you. The solar
MHD dynamo has enormous stored energy and the surface temperature is
enough to vaporise comets before they come close to the photosphere.

There was a nice realtime snatch of the final moments of one caught in
great detail only a couple of months back. It is very obvious how puny
the things are in comparison with the sun. It is about on a par with
claiming that an aircraft was downed by a fly strike to the windscreen.

In fact, the mechanism behind sunspots is rather well understood in
general terms, even if there are many details that remain unknown.


It isn't known at all, and the current best theories have some problems.

The main problem (in my opinion) is the very great regularity shown by
the sunspot cycle. The purported mechanism relies on a dynamo effect,

It isn't all that regular 11+/-1.2 years for each alternate Hale cycle
means that a 10% variation from cycle to cycle is not uncommon. And you
seem to have conveniently forgotten about the Maunder and Dalton Minima
because it suits your purposes on this occasion.

the same as causes changes to the earth's magnetic field. However, the
record of magnetic reversals on earth does not show anything like the
regular periodic behaviour observed in the sunspot cycle.

Actually it does give or take that is one way that newly created
volcanic rocks on ocean ridges can be dated by looking at their magnetic
properties. It isn't anything like so regular but then the Earth's
viscous molten iron core is very messy when compared to a hydrogen
helium plasma.

http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/reversals.html

The main driving force of the dynamo effect is relatively well
understood and is based on Babcock magnetic dynamo model of 1961 which
can explain the magnetic periodicity in a turbulent differential
rotating plasma. The precise details are more tricky to predict when and
where sunspots will appear are still tricky but the theoretical models
do qualitatively reproduce what is observed on the sun.

The problem at present is making the measurements that the models need
as inputs to make better forward predictions of solar activity. A rather
nice living review of the observational evidence online:

http://solarphysics.livingreviews.or...s/lrsp-2010-1/

I do not believe that comets and asteroids affect the sunspot cycle, but
nor have I seen any explanation for why it has a fixed period of 11
years whilst still showing considerable variation in its amplitude. This
theory does at least address these two observations, for which there is
currently no explanation, even if it has other problems.

It isn't a theory at all - wild guess would be closer to the mark.
The best moniker you could dignify it with is "crazy idea".

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 2011-09-29, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Hi guys.
Awhile back I studied an interesting hypothesis about Sunspot cycles.
The 11 and 22 year cycle sync'd with the orbital periods of Jupiter
and
Saturn.
In turn those deflected asteriods into the Sun which causes Sunspots
to appear, rather like craters on a star...Sun craters.
Anyone else ever study that?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

The sunspot cycle isn't in sync with Jupiter. The period of the
revolution of Jupiter around the Sun is 11.86 years. The period of the
revolution of Saturn is 29.46 years. Jupiter and Saturn have the same
ecliptic longitude every 19.85 years on average. Close, but no cigar.
11.86 isn't 11 and 19.85 isn't 22. 29.46 isn't either.

Dropping an asteroid into the Sun is like a raindrop hitting
the ocean, and the Sun, not being solid, can't form craters.

Bud

"U-m757\bud" wrote in message
m...
| On 2011-09-29, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| Hi guys.
| Awhile back I studied an interesting hypothesis about Sunspot cycles.
| The 11 and 22 year cycle sync'd with the orbital periods of Jupiter
| and
| Saturn.
| In turn those deflected asteriods into the Sun which causes Sunspots
| to appear, rather like craters on a star...Sun craters.
| Anyone else ever study that?
| Regards
| Ken S. Tucker
|
| The sunspot cycle isn't in sync with Jupiter. The period of the
| revolution of Jupiter around the Sun is 11.86 years. The period of the
| revolution of Saturn is 29.46 years. Jupiter and Saturn have the same
| ecliptic longitude every 19.85 years on average. Close, but no cigar.
| 11.86 isn't 11 and 19.85 isn't 22. 29.46 isn't either.
|
| Dropping an asteroid into the Sun is like a raindrop hitting
| the ocean, and the Sun, not being solid, can't form craters.
|
| Bud

Thank you, Bud. I'd have called the drooling moron a nasty name
but I'm nowhere near as polite as you.