What modulates our Sun? The majority of science work on the principle that the Sun is self modulating and each solar cycle is a product of a random number generator. There are others that suspect the Sun is modulated by the planets with a special emphasis on Uranus & Neptune. Thanks to Carl Smith who has recently left us we have new knowledge that significantly adds to Jose, Landscheidt & Charvàtovà's work.

Geoff Sharp

Website Paper is Published.


After much encouragement from Nicola Scafetta and others I have finally produced a document that summarizes the articles on this site in a scientific format. The document is 15 pages in PDF format and hopefully will enable easier understanding of the entire theory presented on this site.

The paper was published May 31 2010 in Physics/Geophysics, Cornell University Library.


Thanks to G. E. Pease for providing peer review and content.

Also many thanks to Nicola Scafetta for providing advice and initial peer review.

Download PDF file (2.4mb)


Third Event

Just a minor point mentioned in the conclusion which I would just like clarifying: is it rare that we aren't experiencing a third event or is it rare for there to be a third event?

There seems to be

There seems to be another recent paper which suggests that the sun is headed for a Grand Minimum which is not going to be shorter than a century! Please tell me they're wrong! Here is the link:

rare event

Yes it does appear rare that we are not experiencing a 3rd AMP event this time around. It probably happens on a cycle as the position of the planets gradually change over the centuries. In recent times 3 events has been the norm but there are instances of 4 events that occur before the Sporer Minimum.


I do think they are wrong.

The paper is based on statistics and does not offer a reasonable argument in my opinion. It may take some time before we will know for sure unfortunately.

Solar Cycles and Planets

Are ALL solar cycles long AND short controlled by planetary movements or are there some which are internal to the sun, like the 11 year cycle?

11 year cycle

The 11 year cycle is an area where both sides of science really don't have a definitive answer. There has been some work done by Desmoulins and Hung that suggest the 11 year cycle is in sync with Jupiter, Earth & Venus orbit patterns (most aligned days)but the jury is still out. Doppler observations of the torsional oscillation patterns on the solar surface show recurring bands of fast and slow regions that start every 11 years and persist for around 17 years. The sunspot butterfly patterns align with these regions and look to be linked. If we can discover what drives these patterns which arise from the Tachocline a lot of questions will be answered.

I wrote an article on Carl's Blog some time ago that deals with torsional oscillation HERE

Sunspot cycles exhibit their

Sunspot cycles exhibit their strongest modulation when Angular Momentum is at its highest. This ALWAYS occurs when Uranus & Neptune are together, this wave is repeatable every 172 years. But the peak of the wave also holds the right conditions for grand minima which can only happen around the peak in Angular Momentum.

I am surprised you are still pushing your fathers incorrect theory of the Earth orbiting the SSB. The JPL coordinates show this to be a falsification..

Challenging JPL

Hi Howard, that is quite a challenge to say the JPL data is incorrect, I know Gerry would disagree with you as he used to work for NASA and guided spacecraft using this data, part of the JPL process is to back up the data with observations. A big statement like the Earth does not orbit the Sun would need to be quantified with some solid data. If you can prove that, science would be over turned.

Data needed

Hi again Howard,

I appreciate your determination, but you have a world of data needed to justify your family claims. Proposing such a claim demands secure data that so far is not forthcoming. Solid data has to be provided supporting your claim the Earth orbits the SSB which I am severely skeptical can be achieved.

JPL tells us the small elliptical orbit of Earth varies by 15,000 km. The Sun can move 1.5 million km from the SSB, that adds 3 million km to our already elliptical orbit if we go on your theory. There are many satellites that are balanced between the Sun/Earth gravity point measuring solar output that allow for the small differences in the Earth/Sun distance, their results would not be quantifiable going on your theory.

The ball rests in your will need to provide solid evidence.



Useful Animation

Howard and Geoff,

I am no scientist and I am not going to get involved in this debate anymore than to give you a video link which suggests that the Sun AND planets orbit around the SSB:


A useful animation that displays the solar path generated by the gas giants, but it does not offer any evidence of the orbit axis point of the solar system planets.

The Sun moves around the SSB because of gravitation forces exerted from the planets. The same forces dictate the planets must orbit the Sun. I have researched this in great detail and have yet to come across any evidence that supports any planet orbiting the SSB. Having said that I would be extremely interested to be shown otherwise with scientific data as it would open a Pandora's box in relation to spin orbit coupling.

Implications if theory correct

I suppose it doesn't provide any such evidence, but does this new idea jeopardise the planetary theory, Carl's graph or the prediction of future solar cycle modulation? In my opinion, it only challenges our knowledge of solar-terrestrial relations. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. Definitive data, as you say, would validate the theory. Here is another video made by the same people about the Earth-Moon Barycenter if you want to take a look: 

Obviously I have no idea who's right, and I don't doubt anyone's expertise.

Oh! And here's another

Oh! And here's another video using Celestia software showing the sun's wobble and the orbits of Mercury, Venus and Earth following the sun's wobble:

Obviously it doesn't provide any evidence or data, but it contradicts the other video.


Youtube video can be very unreliable. But if anyone can challenge JPL Horizons data and be successful,  it will make front page.


There is a website here which states that each planet has its own Barycenter system with the sun, and that the Earth-Sun Barycenter is "well within the body of the sun". Jupiter's is 28,000 miles above the surface of the sun.

Another website saying a similar thing (but for kids!):


Location of SSB

So, based on that, where is the SSB? Would it be central to all the planet-sun barycenters, probably closest to the Jupiter-Sun Barycenter? Or where the centre of the sun would be if nothing at all was orbiting it?

Position of the SSB?

Yes each planet has its own planet/Sun barycentre point, because they revolve around the Sun or this would not be possible, just as the Earth & Moon share their own barycentre point with each other. As the Earth moves around the Sun the Moon is taken with it, this is no different to the Sun/planet system only that more players ae involved. The SSB is a mathematical point calculated as the central point that the Sun orbits around on its loopy changing path. The path is determined by the combination of the planet positions at the time. The SSB (solar system barycentre) is the intersection of the red lines, the yellow circle is not the position of the Sun, it is just to show the relative size. The centre of the Sun is travelling on the loopy line.

Well that solves it!

Thanks for your patience. This seems to demolish the theory that the planets orbit the SSB, so do real-life observations and calculations.

Thanks Howard

Thanks Howard, your fathers theory on the fluctuating galaxy orbit speeds of the Sun & planets is interesting but it will need solid data to back it up. It is flying in the face of JPL and maybe will challenge Kepler as well. He is talking about a chord length change that is not tied to the elliptical path. Chord length changes require a trade off to conserve angular momentum, which is normally planet velocity changes. These are all accounted for and observed via Kepler but maybe the door is open for a rotation change of one of the bodies.

The big problem is to demonstrate how the bodies change their galactic seems impossible right now.

"Currently and for some time

"Currently and for some time now, no one continuously measures the TSI, what various groups measure, is the difference or variation in solar output and as expected, this only varies by about 0.1%.

They then apply this to the standard figure of about 1368W per Sq. Metre and for any particular time and place on or in orbit of the Earth, make calculations to adjust the figure to take into account the angle of the Sun, the distance, which is always assumed to be somewhere within the 1AU of the Earth’s orbit, atmosphere, etc. to arrive at a final figure.

If TSI per se were to be measured continuously, relatively vast variations would be found and more importantly, would match the historical climate records and show that at times, that climate variation is highly regional in nature, again this is reflected in various sedimentary and other historical records."

This is incorrect. The absolute value of TSI is measured continuously and with great precision. And shows a sinusoidal pattern [variation 7% - largest in January] through the year because of the varying distance to the Sun. This absolute TSI is what is important for climate. If we want to know what the Sun puts out we must compensate for the varying distance. When we do that, we find a solar cycle variation of 0.1%, some 70 times smaller than the yearly variation.


riesI agree with your figures

riesI agree with your figures of the Solar variation, 0.1% and the orbital variation of 7%. I also agree that it is the Earth's elliptical orbit that gives rise to the 7% variation. Where we diverge is that Bailey is saying that the Earth orbits the SSB (Solar System Barycentre) and not the Sun


Right here is where your argument falls down. The orbital variation of Earth has to be greater than 7% from the Sun if the Earth orbits the SSB.

EDIT: TSI varies by 7% over the year but the orbit varies by only 3%.

Re. Basic Physics

Thanks for your input Steve. Stating that the Earth orbits the SSB is controversial and just plain wrong unfortunately. The JPL data is correct and is verified by observations and many sources including the multitude of satellites that need to calibrate their data against the small Earth/Sun variations.  I have researched almost every planet through the JPL data and my conclusions suggest they all orbit the Sun. Some with high credentials disagree when it comes to the gas giants.

Earth's orbit is affected by other planets gravity but it is a perturbation of the orbit shape on a minor scale and does not affect the actual orbit point. Each planet I think orbits its own planet/Sun barycentre point, the Sun moves around according to the relevant planet positions. Each planet has to move with the Sun as it changes its position, which is a product of the planet positions.

Re: Solar AM

Steve and Howard, you are both making the same assumption but not checking the data. The Sun is moved by the relative position of the planets but the planets also move with the Sun. When you look at the actual gas giant data the only variation in the solar distance to planet is that expected from the small orbit perturbations caused by the position of the other gas giants. When you look at the gas giant to SSB distance it clearly shows the big variation as the sun moves away...the planets are following.

The best way to look at the data is to compare the Sun/Planet distance at the same point in their respective orbits. I have done this exercise some time ago in an article on Carl's Blog....check it out.

As mentioned previously if the Earth orbited the SSB the variation in Solar distance would be MUCH larger than the 15000 km's we currently see when measuring the distance at the same point in the orbit. The Earth is closest to the Sun each January, this would not be the case if the Earth orbited the SSB.

But the challenge is in front of you, pick a day in the year and prove that the Sun/Earth distance varies by more than 15000 km's each year. According to your theory the distance should fluctuate by at least 1.5 million km's over a ten year period.


The Sun is the Gravitational Centre of the Solar System

Steve, I can see where the confusion lies. The SSB is a fictional point that the Sun orbits around but it only truly represents the centre of the solar system when the Sun is directly over it. The path of the Sun is where the central point of the planetary masses lies which changes every second. The solar SSB charts are recording the angular momentum of the Sun as it is flung around the SSB by the planets. The position of the planets is the important factor even though they (I think) are following the central orbit point of the Sun. I am very confident in the JPL data when it comes to the solar AM, it is cross checked by 2 other sources. The AMP events line up precisely with the isotope records over the Holocene and the solar path as mapped out via Arnholm's Newtonian based path generator matches perfectly.

Inertial frames are another argument and are more important when looking at planet AM. Semi is one I was mentioning about having a different view on the gas giants, but I also don't understand his logic. The planet AM graph in my mind has to show the planet perturbations to be correct. Semi in figure 31 shows the Sun/Earth distance balanced agaisnt the EMB distance, this is not what we need to see. I will make a graph of the EMB/Sun distance soon, which will answer the solar chord argument.

The EMB graph (fig 36) is a great example of how the orbit is influenced by the other planets. The difference is small but the peaks and troughs will line up with the normal elliptical movements along with the planets adding their influence. There is a good example of this in my Jovian AM story. All this to me is solid evidence of the planet orbit axis point. The EMB AM graphs using the SSB as axis point are of little value, calculating AM from a non axis point is almost pointless really, the 10 year trend is just J/S.

New forum topic for further discussion

J/S is Jupiter/Saturn.

I have opened a forum topic to discuss this in a better format. I have produced the graph that you are after.

Lets work through the issues and try and get some outcomes.

Many thanks go to Carl's brother Dave for providing the Domain, Server and Software.