It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Data-set discrepancies

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 06:18 AM

Data-set discrepancies.

First of all this is not a counter of the “The Maunder Minimum Is Dead - Didn't Affect Earth's Climate.” thread found at These corrections must be applauded as it helps to eliminate previous misunderstood or opposing theories. It was apparent that there were discrepancies in the data-sets and that the sunspot numbers did not correlate well. Earth actually seems to be cooling down since 64 million years ago with the bigger (short term) fluctuations between warm and cold periods we see today. Events can however be seen as cycle patterns change and new cycles are formed. New studies prove that the last change was 900,000 years ago and not so gradual as previously believed. It also highlighted the discrepancies between ice sheet growth and sea temperature data which does not correlate well with each other before. New studies do however prove that the ice sheets are directly related to the orbital position of Earth.

And as we all would like to know what happens next, it’s unfortunately not possible. But ad-hock events excluded, cycles do give some sort of prediction level. We all know the possible problems with data-sets and dating especially with older and reconstructed data. With new understanding and technologies we are getting smarter and more accurate but we are also able to prove and disprove any single argument. And when we bicker over the possibilities with our opinions we can sometimes forget our manners. My point is: as little as I can predict the future on cycles we cannot predict it on anomalies or what we believe is going to happen.
The following is my personal opinions based on my understanding in reading-up on different subjects that could have been slightly misinterpreted. Please correct me without attacking however if the mood is dark, try not to comment.

A bit about my understanding of gravity.

The natural tendency of similar particles is to group together through gravity. In space particles are floating around mostly without an effect on each other as they are either to far apart or reached a balancing point which neutralize their push/pull. This free floating but dormant state can also exist within a dense molecular cloud. If however an outside influence disturbs them they collide and can start activating conditions to begin a gravitational binding process where a body can have different opposing particles overcome by gravity. As particles bind they will ad to the total gravitational pull of a body. Dark matter is capacitive (none conductive particles) and does not get influence by magnetic fields as they are only bound by gravity and not by electromagnetic forces.

Why Magnetic fields play a role.

In a gravitational process the exited electrons of conductive particles breaks free and start interaction causing a magnetic field. As a disk/body grows the field will be directly related to the Uranium, Potassium and Strontium particles present. In a star like our sun its magnetic field strength determines the Heliosphere size. The Heliopause is the imaginary grid/filter balancing point between the Sun’s radiation and interstellar radiation and our first line of defense against cosmic radiation. But cosmic radiation still enters and our Sun will also loose particles to interstellar space. Larger bodies with molten cores together with their rotation speed will generate magnetic fields like a dynamo making an electro magnet. The local magnetic field strengths of bodies are the second line of defense against super charged high-speed particles (high-energy electrons) entering our Solar System. And the last defense is the atmospheric layers retained by the gravitational attraction of a body slowing these particles down, however their density and speed will eventual determine the effect on a body.
I think this picture I found in the public domain explains it all and I can only ad that: A small changes can have an amplified effect as much as 10 times larger on cosmic radiation.

Center of mass - Barycenter

Our calculations have the Sun make up nearly 99.8% of the mass of the solar system with Jupiter and other planets the rest. I’m not a scientist but something does not feel accurate with these percentages and would like some insight as logic tells me we should all be inside the Sun by now. The center of mass between two bodies will be defendant on their orbital distance and mass.

Because of the mass of the Sun, the center of mass in our Solar System will always be moving around within the Sun itself. The angular motion of Jupiter, Earth and Venus is causing our main Sun cycle and has been proven (± 11year cycle). Other bodies in our Solar System cause the amplification or decline of this cycle with their positions relative to the Sun and each other.

The shifting on the center of mass, doesn’t matter how small, must have a direct influence on the Sun’s core and that according to me is one of the main contributing causes for our Sun to be a variable star. However the Solar System’s movement in the Orion Spur could also have some effect but as even angular motion is not fully accepted or understood yet, we seem far away before seeing that link.

For background here is my Triggers thread.

new topics

log in