Asteriods deflected to Sun by Jupiter and Saturn.

On 9/29/11 4:01 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

Do you understand the relationship between magnetic fields and
Sunspots, Ken?

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
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, the the periods of sunspot activity are not exactly the same, and if
there was a causal relationship they would remain in sync. As it is the
sunspot cycle goes through about 10 semi-cycles in the same time as Jupiter
orbits 9 times.

The sunspot cycle is tied to the cycle of the reversal of the Sun's magnetic
field, which we can independently measure. That is a function of the Sun as
a whole.

I believe that it would be possibly for a comet to hit the "surface" of the
Sun if it was very well aimed. That could cause local effects.

Nobody really know what triggers sunspots to appear in one place and not
another. Clearly some of it is local weather conditions; they appear in
clusters. There is no reason that the elements dumped into the upper levels
of the Sun by a comet impact couldn't help seed sunspot creation, but
equally no reason to believe it to be true. No impact has ever been
observed.

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

SOLAR Climatology...

Meteor Infall pf Sun compared to Ear(th)...
Sun dia ~ 100x Ear
Sun area ~ 10^4 Ear
Sun mass ~ 3x10^5 Ear

Meteor impact rate,
mass x area,

Sun impacts ~ 3 x 10^9 Ear

Going to kinetic energy,(ve=escape velocity),
(for math-physics guys),
Sun Ve = 55 x Ear
Sun Ve^2 = 3 x 10^3 Ear

Energy infall Sun = 10^13 Ear

and of interest is
Energy infall / area Sun = 10^9 Ear, (10^9 = billion),

What about the comet that hit the Sun yesterday?
Seemed to affect the whole Sun.
Ken
PS: Please correct figures if error occurs...thanks

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 15:22:19 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
wrote:

Meteor impact rate,
mass x area,

How do you conclude this? Mass isn't a factor, only area.

Energy infall / area Sun = 10^9 Ear, (10^9 = billion),

You need to correct per above. But regardless of the number, you need
to convert to actual energy units to make any kind of meaningful
point.

What about the comet that hit the Sun yesterday?
Seemed to affect the whole Sun.

Not really. There is zero evidence of causality between the comet and
the CME, and no theoretical basis for such. The scientific community
is nearly unanimous in recognizing the occasional near timing of comet
"impacts" and CMEs or other activity as purely coincidental. There is
a nice, technical analysis supporting this at
http://sungrazer.nrl.navy.mil/index....ws/comets_cmes

On Oct 6, 5:12 pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 15:22:19 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"

wrote:
Meteor impact rate,
mass x area,

How do you conclude this? Mass isn't a factor, only area.

Newton would be enlightened. Any chance you'll awaken
him and correct his Law of Gravity?
Ken

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 22:49:51 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
wrote:

Meteor impact rate,
mass x area,

How do you conclude this? Mass isn't a factor, only area.

Newton would be enlightened. Any chance you'll awaken
him and correct his Law of Gravity?

So you think that objects with mass are just big vacuum cleaners
sucking things in? You need to familiarize yourself with where Kepler
took Newton's laws! So I ask again: how to do come up with the
conclusion that impact rate is equal to or proportional to mass times
area?

Objects _orbit_ Sun; they rarely fall into it. This applies to the
comets observed "hitting" the Sun, as well as any asteroids (which
haven't been observed). They are not in orbits that intersect the
surface of the Sun, but rather, orbits that take them sufficiently
close that they vaporize.

On Oct 7, 7:46 am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 22:49:51 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"

wrote:
Meteor impact rate,
mass x area,
How do you conclude this? Mass isn't a factor, only area.
Newton would be enlightened. Any chance you'll awaken
him and correct his Law of Gravity?

So you think that objects with mass are just big vacuum cleaners
sucking things in? You need to familiarize yourself with where Kepler
took Newton's laws! So I ask again: how to do come up with the
conclusion that impact rate is equal to or proportional to mass times
area?

Objects _orbit_ Sun; they rarely fall into it. This applies to the
comets observed "hitting" the Sun, as well as any asteroids (which
haven't been observed). They are not in orbits that intersect the
surface of the Sun, but rather, orbits that take them sufficiently
close that they vaporize.

I think you're analogy (vacuum cleaner) is a good one to start.
It depends on the form of proof the reader would like.
Ken

On Oct 7, 4:46*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 22:49:51 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"

wrote:
Meteor impact rate,
mass x area,
How do you conclude this? Mass isn't a factor, only area.
Newton would be enlightened. Any chance you'll awaken
him and correct his Law of Gravity?

So you think that objects with mass are just big vacuum cleaners
sucking things in? You need to familiarize yourself with where Kepler
took Newton's laws! So I ask again: how to do come up with the
conclusion that impact rate is equal to or proportional to mass times
area?


Ah proportions indeed !

"That the fixed stars being at rest,the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun." Newton

Kepler's flawed approach is easily understandable and nothing like
that mess above -

"And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which is 1
year, and the period of Saturn, which is 30 years, and extract the
cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio by squaring
the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the most just
ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun. 1 For the
cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube root of
30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is greater than
9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is slightly higher
than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from the sun." Kepler
or in its original form -

"The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets
is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler

None of this matters at the moment and it can be dealt with when
genuine people take the issues seriously but from a point of view of
confidence and respect for the historical and technical details and
not the distortion and manipulation of them.

The only proportion you all have to consider is how to rework the 1461
rotations into 1461 days or 4 orbital circumferences back into
planetary dynamics and 365 1/4 rotations for 1 orbital period of the
Earth.It is extremely infuriating to deal with people who have no
intention of adapting to something so easy to grasp and Newton';;s
ideology is built around the utterly stupid 366 1/4 rotations per
circuit via the Ra/Dec ideology taken too far.

Is there a single competent individual who wants to truly earn their
doctorates for a change ?.

On 10/6/11 5:22 PM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
What about the comet that hit the Sun yesterday?
Seemed to affect the whole Sun.
Ken

How did it affect the whole sun?

On Oct 7, 7:52 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 10/6/11 5:22 PM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:

What about the comet that hit the Sun yesterday?
Seemed to affect the whole Sun.
Ken

How did it affect the whole sun?

Via the shock wave transmission from the impact energy.
Recall that one may be in a long elliptical room and a
whisper at one focus can be heard at the other focus.
Depends on the medium, but the shock wave through the
Sun refocuses at specific locations, as it is a sphere.
Ken