The Cause of the Solar Cycle
Sun 11:38 am +01:00, 15 Sep 2024First published September 6, 2014
Extended September 24, 2014
Extracts:
What the mainstream doesn’t understand is that the local magnetism of Jupiter, say, doesn’t have to travel from there to the Sun in order to cause the Solar magnetic responses and cycles. So what we are seeing isn’t strictly a magnetic transference through space. What we are seeing is a charge transference through space which then causes a magnetic reaction on the Sun. What is
traveling between the bodies is real photons with real field densities and real spins. These photons can then cause various E/M effects once they hit large bodies that are composed of ions or ion fields.
and
So why isn’t the Solar cycle exactly 11.862 years? Because Jupiter isn’t the only cause. To calculate
the cycle in any given year, we have to track all four of the Jovians (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and
Neptune). Basically, when the charge fields of Jupiter and Saturn are in line, we get a maximum (of
some kind). When Jupiter and Saturn are at 90 degrees, we should get a minimum. The full maximum would be when all four Jovians are in line with the Sun.
Source: https://milesmathis.com/cycle.pdf
[I recommend looking at the diagram on page 3, it shows how charge routes through the Earth]
First two pages:
One of my readers sent me a link to wonderful new data from NASA. [NASA killed that link,
probably because I used it here, but it is still in the WaybackMachine here.] Although NASA and the
rest of the mainstream are not so good when it comes to theory, they are quite adept at compiling data,
so I have to thank them in this case. Without their numbers I could do nothing.
It has been known for a long time that the main Solar cycle is about 11 years, but that is just an
average. It goes from a minimum of about 9 years up to about 14 years. Although some theories have
been presented, the cause of all three numbers is unknown. I will show you the correct answer here.
The reason I so quickly hit on the right answer is that I knew where to look. In my other long paper on
Sun cycles (ice ages), I have already shown that Jupiter is the cause of the secondary variance. In this
case we will see that Jupiter is the cause of the primary variance. Upon reading the NASA data, Jupiter
is the first place I looked. The NASA writers even give us a hidden clue, though it is doubtful anyone
but me tripped over it. They say,
The team found magnetic parcels in sizes that had been seen before, but also spotted much larger parcels than those previously noted — about the diameter of Jupiter.
Even I didn’t get the message the first time I read that. It took a second reading. The first time you
read that, you just think the parcels accidentally match the size of Jupiter. You can’t see any physical
reason Jupiter would be projecting his image onto the Sun, so you don’t go there. You just keep
reading. This is the same reason the mainstream doesn’t think to look at Jupiter as the cause of the 11-
year cycle. Given mainstream theory, there doesn’t seem to be any physical way that Jupiter could be
causing the magnetic cycles of the Sun, so no one goes there. To them, Jupiter affecting Solar cycles
smacks of astrology, so instead they look for the answer in the Solar interior.
I will pause to confirm that my theory of charge influence is completely physical, and has nothing to do with paranormal or mystical causes. In fact, it is much more mechanical than what normally passes for physics these days. It is known that celestial bodies have prominent E/M fields, and the charge field
simply underlies and causes these E/M fields, just as it does at the quantum level and in Maxwell’s
equations. [There, the D field causes both the E field and the H/B field, and the D field is what I am
calling charge here.] What the mainstream doesn’t understand is that the local magnetism of Jupiter,
say, doesn’t have to travel from there to the Sun in order to cause the Solar magnetic responses and
cycles. So what we are seeing isn’t strictly a magnetic transference through space. What we are seeing
is a charge transference through space which then causes a magnetic reaction on the Sun. What is
traveling between the bodies is real photons with real field densities and real spins. These photons can
then cause various E/M effects once they hit large bodies that are composed of ions or ion fields.
But back to the problem at hand. That passing mention of Jupiter finally jogged something in my head,
and it was so simple it made me laugh. What is the orbital period of Jupiter? 11.862 years. Ho-ho!
So why isn’t the Solar cycle exactly 11.862 years? Because Jupiter isn’t the only cause. To calculate
the cycle in any given year, we have to track all four of the Jovians (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and
Neptune). Basically, when the charge fields of Jupiter and Saturn are in line, we get a maximum (of
some kind). When Jupiter and Saturn are at 90 degrees, we should get a minimum. The full maximum
would be when all four Jovians are in line with the Sun.
Do we have any other evidence for this? We do. The great conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn take
place every 18-20 years. If we return to the NASA paper, we find
This process [Solar Cycle], from migratory start to finish at the equator [of the Sun] takes 19 years on average, but is seen to vary from 16 to about 21 years. We have a match: an average of 19 years in both places.
I have to imagine someone has seen these number matches and proposed an influence from Jupiter and
Saturn. But they probably got bogged down in the field mechanics pretty quickly and couldn’t make it
work. They therefore gave up or tried more esoteric solutions. But if you have my unified field
equations, you find the calculations are all well-oiled from the beginning. We will find no sticky spots.
And we have much more evidence indicating we are on the right track before we even do any math. If
we return to my papers of the past five or six years, we find this diagram many times:
