Are these the same guys that missed the mass/energy of the universe by 1900% (95/5)...:)
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Mauro Lacy <ma...@lacy.com.ar> wrote: > ** > On 09/30/2013 11:47 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Mauro Lacy <ma...@lacy.com.ar> wrote: > > I found it odd that nobody mentions the *positions* of the planets >> (Jupiter, mainly), during solar max. Maybe to try to avoid the association >> with astrology, the constellations, and related pseudo-scientific stuff? >> > > Could there be some kind of effect from a tidal force on the sun > arising from the pull of the planets when they converge on a certain > pattern every eleven years? > > > That's the first reason one would think of. But, according to the one of > the references in the > paper<http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1106/1106.0847.pdf>, > a tidal effect is ruled out due to its small magnitude: > "However, it was realized that the estimated planetary tidal impact was > extremely small to cause any significant change of the dynamic Sun [2], or > even less to justify the origin of the enigmatic 11 years cycle. For this > reason the planetary - Sun connection has been ignored for long time, while > such a claim was also seen not only within astronomy, but rather instead > within the frame of astrology [3]!" > > Reference [2]: N. Scafetta / J. Atm. & Sol.-Terr. Phys. 81–82 (2012) 27, > and ref’s therein; > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612001034 > Reference [ 3]: P. Charbonneau, Nature 493 (2013) 613; > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7434/pdf/493613a.pdf . > See also J.A. Abreu, J. Beer, A. Ferriz-Mas, K.G. McCracken, F. > Steinhilber, > Astron. Astrophys. 548 (2012) A88; >
