The original blog pioneered by Carl has moved….Auditblogs is no longer in existence brought about by hardware failure. We thank John A for providing a great platform that continues to advance solar science.
The original addresses will still re direct to the new site, so nothing is lost 🙂
UPDATE 30th Nov: The original landscheidt.auditblogs.com address is also now operational, both sites coming under the one administration.
UPDATE 3rd May 2012: The auditblogs website is now defunct. Please update your links to http://www.landscheidt.wordpress.com
Landscheidt Cycles Research 
Geoff,
Many measurements since 1960 indicate that:
a.) The Sun is NOT a ball of hydrogen, but this lightest of all elements accumulates at the top of most stellar atmospheres;
b.) The Sun formed on the remnant neutron star that remained after the precursor star exploded 5 Gy ago and ejected all of the material that now orbits the Sun; and
c.) The Sun is heated by repulsive interactions between neutrons [1-4].
Have you considered how a compact, energetic solar core might produce solar cycles?
1. “Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy”, J. Fusion Energy 19,(2001) 93-98.
Click to access jfeinterbetnuc.pdf
2. “Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”, J. Fusion Energy 20 (2002) 197-201.
Click to access jfe-neutronrep.pdf
3. “On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars,” J. Fusion Energy 25 (2006) 107-114.
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511051
4. ” The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass,” Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 847-1856.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Geoff Sharp; An observation that may be of use to you.
During this fall the first sun spots seemed to appear just as they went over the horizon ( earth viewpoint) and disappeared as they came into view.
Question? how did this correspond to the to the barycenter point? maybe a clue to the boiling pot of spots.
PG
REPLY: Good question …some people have also observed most spots seem to occur on the Earth side as well. If we go back to sept 09 the SSB is between Earth and Sun ( Earth in conjunction with Jupiter. Jupiter always has the SSB between it and the Sun), in dec 09 we have moved around 90 deg from that point in an anti clockwise direction or about 1/4 of the orbit, the SSB to Sun position in that time changes little. To my memory most of the spots lately have appeared not long after coming onto the earth side. If during sept the spots were appearing as they are about to leave the earth side face that would suggest they have moved 3/4 of the way around the Sun while our position has changed by 1/4 and the SSB is little changed. This would suggest the two are not linked, but I might be missing something. I might watch this starting point of the spot more carefully in future.
Thanks, Geoff, for maintaining this site!
Truth may be your only companion for a while.
But ultimately truth cannot be defeated by popular dogmas.
The Sun is jerked around the Solar System’s Barycenter, whether or not Al Gore, the UN’s IPCC or Anthony Watts will admit that fact.
That is what produces cycles of sunspots as it relocates the Sun’s energetic, compact, highly magnetic core relative to the solar surface.
I appreciate your efforts to keep this issue before the public.
Keep up the good work! Decades of deceit in science will be exposed if the spotlight of public attention succeeds in actually melting the dirty Climategate iceberg!
Happy New Year!
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
REPLY: Thanks for your support Oliver, science always has a way of sorting out the truth but unfortunately the process can be rocky sometimes. I am in no hurry and will enjoy watching those who have tried to suppress science finally have their day in court.
Oliver, Hi
Having correlated the geomagnetic activity and global temperature of the 1900’s
and finding a gap in singular causal effect (including pre-perihelion transition).
I am awaiting the coming decades deep cycle oceanic research before concluding
little covenant in extreme CO2 mitigation and political brake being put on
harmonic technological investment to avoid 30yr – 80yr hydro-cycle repercussion.
The road to truth is littered with the echoes of loud voices and our own.
Rejoined organic atmospheric nucleation is easily seen as a further stabiliser to
subtractive solar forcing (low level cloud), which will remain as constant
as the Sun and planets make it.
As NASA reporting of CME is complimented by SSB and AM, the delineating
inclination of individual planetary body eccentricities from celestial line
may provide AM astrophysicists with sure enough depth to produce ranges of
threshold plasma recoil (CME) as regional sub-coronal quantum polarisation peaks
created from corona to major element barycentre displacement torsions;
i.e. the work cost of maintaining orbiting planetary mass, after nebulas reformation,
is expelled mass as waste product, which is ultimately conserved where received.
The basic AM elements are adequate to put store and plant by at the (sub)decadal,
while this greater detail will support more science dependant work
such as space scheduling, Earthing forecasts and anomalous seasonal preparations.
More, in this case, is most definitely better,
where joviality makes the world go round
just that bit less unexpectedly.
Having said that.
I’ve discerned that the power of Jupiter has waned
during the scrutiny of collective effect, and the
element characterisation transforming AM calibration to a level where to be in
‘ignorance is blistering and costly’ for businesses and governments.
If a pinch of AM is left in the ‘song remains the same’ pouch
the pipe will continue to smoke blind business and agriculturalists alike,
while marginal herders lose more grazing.
Generational change is an immense ball to get moving,
especially with competing global influences.
AMs’ political and modelling popularity appears to be based on the above
uncertainty of hydro-cycle latency v socialist energy transition critical mass.
I sure the Annual Landscheit Lectures and Conferences will provide
enough momentum to bridge Civil Engineering encompassment.
Kind regards
Iain
verdanarch
Geoff
Many thanks for your diligent work.
As a steady state universe or ‘red-shift tidal effect’ collaborator since 1995 I am delighted such valuable science is held in proven light.
Whilst AM research is furthered by academics across the world, we must hope that the fuel
to energy transition investment which supports such needed education in areas where the
need is greatest, will continue progressing toward a socio-gaia-logically
harmonic perpetuity, rather than not. The varying perspectives of
proportional climatological forcing attributed to SSB and therefore AM,
is a tricky subject.
Various long term institutes and organisations have recorded the history of
planetary conjunctions and Earthly chronologies,
but relatively little applied fresh data,
and no year-to-year/decade-to-decade forecasting credibility
except 1 in 50-100yr event schedules.
Still, further refinement and the established core principle on these pages
will refract well through the prism of harvest enablement where
cooperative progression is best served by your endeavours.
Many thanks again. I look forward to input on
gravitational and magnetic focusing in the future.
Philosophically I much prefer a naturalised version of the static evolving universe,
where matter in a given area of massive space becomes depleted, inactive or
expended, whilst areas like our own known universe are constantly exchanging
galactic expulsions, supernova particulates and planetary debris,
as opposed to the LaVoilette spontaneous micro creation theory of
Sub-Quantum Kinetics.
After all, many scientists are oft occasioned towards reductionism to explain
confounding elements that arise from Occum departures,
like solar dynamo purists who tend an ignorance of our Solar Bolas at our peril.
Cheers again
Iain
I still maintain looking at the data that we are actually fairly well allong on this cycle. It is not really just beginning. The fact that once the spots finally had enough umpf to get through the magnetic ceiling they have been nearly constant now since the first of the year. I still think we are going to be seing the max sometime about 2012 and it will only be somewhere near 50. This also coroloates to the Livingston and Penn findings as a peak in 2012 would lend itself well to spots disappearing by 2015 If you go back and look at previous cycles, there is usually a period where there are a mix of spotted and spotless days for a while before the cycle firmly takes hold, not this time. For some reason this seems to corolate real well with the barycenter models, but what do I know I am just an electronics engineer, not a real solar scientist (that is what you keep Oliver around for 🙂 )
This cycle does not seem to be following any pattern of the last 100 years, some are saying we are already near maximum but the groups are too far from the equator in my opinion. SC5 had a higher false start than we have seen so far for SC24 so it is feasible that the recent activity could fall back for a period, there are signs of that happening right now.
I have a comparison graph of SC5 & SC24 that I am updating monthly that might be interesting to watch on the Layman’s count page:
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
I am not convinced by the L&P effect just yet….perhaps its just a record of the falling magnetic field of SC23 which now leads into a very weak SC24.
Gentlemen,
I hope you noticed the new Scafetta paper, which is noticed also here:
I guess it is a great contribution to the same work as you have been performing for a long time. I only don’t understand why Dr. Scafetta tries to avoid “barycentrism”, which I believe is a hint to you.
REPLY: Nicola’s new paper is a nice expansion on his earlier work and talk at the EPA. The SSB/climate link he proposes dovetails very nicely into a lot of the research performed here. I am in the process of writing an article on the similarities of both research streams….stay tuned.
Yes, the Scafetta paper is a great addition!
From a recent Physics World news article,
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42666
it seems that the NAS President will continue ignoring reality and pouring public funds into the illusion that Earth’s climate is immune from the Sun.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel