# About Frederick Bailey's "Textbook of Gravity, Sunspots and Climate"

I have received the following as a comment from Howard Bailey, with some comments about Frederick Bailey’s “Textbook of Gravity, Sunspots and Climate and an exchange with some critic of his. Being it way too long as such, am republishing it as a blog, and as usual, it is posted as-is (with some formatting, and removing Joe’s family name).

My father has done a lot of independent, unfunded, unbiased work on this subject for a number of years; the following is an overview of the contents of his latest work.

I would like to draw your attention to a relatively recent discovery by my father, Frederick Bailey, regarding Sunspot prediction and more importantly, what drives major global temperature changes.

Fred started out to try and prove what causes the cycle of sunspot activity, a 260 years old mystery, he achieved this after about 4years work involving calculating and plotting planetary positions etc. This work also validated what others have already stated i.e. sunspots have very little effect upon global temperatures.

Previous attempts at sunspot prediction were done on the basis that the solar system bodies moved through space in an essentially flat plane, the textbook traditional ‘dinner plate model’, flying along our Galactic trajectory, a 225 million years orbit of our Galaxy. In other words to simplify their work, the solar system model was treated as a 2 dimensional system. Consequently this model did not solve the problem.

My father decide to use the much more complicated real life, 3 dimensional model, whereby all the solar bodies actually move in a complicated, intertwining corkscrew like spiral of movements. Hence the years of calculations. The details are given in the references at the end of this article. Using this model he was able to prove his idea that it is the rate of change of the positions of the planetary bodies that drives sunspot production i.e. the acceleration and deceleration of the Sun caused, at certain times, by the rapidly changing positions of the planets.

How was Fred able to do this? The so called ‘Butterfly’ diagram of sunspot numbers, is a record of the previous 24 sunspot cycles (Each cycle is about 11years) By calculating the solar bodies’ positions BACKWARDS in time, he found that his sunspot maxi-ma and mini-ma calculations exactly matched the historical data, so therefore, if this can be done going backwards in time, then, it can also be done by going forwards in time because the movements of the solar bodies are highly predictable.

Fred published 1 year in advance of NASA, who could only manage about one month, the month of July 2006, as being the time of minimum sunspot production and the start of the next cycle, what was that figure? It was ZERO!! His book gives the dates for the next cycles up to 2038 i.e. the next 3 cycles.

Now I come to the secondary but more important discovery of global temperature prediction. During his calculations and numerous diagrams of plotted Sun and Earth positions relative to the common centre of mass of ALL the solar bodies, including the Sun, he realised that the generally accepted premise that the distance of the Earth from the Sun was known and thought to be the same at various key points in the solar annual cycle, was shown to be FALSE; because his diagrams showed that the Earth Sun distance, what he called the Chord Length, in his diagrams, showed that in fact this distance is constantly variable but nonetheless, predictable.

Why is this so important? Solar output measurements from satellites at given points in the annual solar cycle, ASSUMED that the figure would be the same in 6 months time because it is thought that the Earth Sun distance would be the same. His work showed that this distance does in fact vary by more than a million miles. Why does this matter? Well, the distance of the Earth from the Sun obviously alters the total solar warming effect, Fred’s calculations showed massive variations in Watts per Square Metre. As much as 30W per Square Metre, far more than the figures used by climate modelling scientists.

How did Fred validate this finding? Again there many global temperature statistics from sources such as, ice core samples, tree rings data etc. Yet again by calculating backwards, it matched the data, therefore again, future global temperature trends can be calculated with some accuracy.

Fred’s prediction is that the Northern hemisphere will experience a cooler period in the summer time, resulting in the Northwest Passage becoming ice bound again in the 2020’s

It also shows that Carbon levels appear not to be the driver of temperature change, but rather, the consequence or result of temperature change.

Fred has tried for years to get his work published and validated by so called experts, but they were often unable to grasp the meaning or even understand his work but more often they are now driven by political pressures and monetary considerations i.e. threats of funding withdrawal if they dare to speak up. There are some notable supporters. Mainly where their separate specialist investigations have shown data that compliments and validates Fred’s work.

A major criticism was that Fred did not list any references, the reason is simple, there are no references, his work is original and in time his work will initially, become the major reference.

References:- Textbook of Gravity Sunspots and Climate. ISBN 978-0955120220

Linkages between Solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development. Published by Journal of the South African Institute of Civil Engineering. Volume 49 No2. June 2007, Paper 659, pages 32-44.

Book available by e-mail from fredbailey@sky.com Author.

Paper available by e-mail from smoolman@netactive.co.sa Publishing editor.

Regards

Howard Bailey

*********************************************************************

From Joe

In reading that, the words which troubled me most were “he realised that the generally accepted premise that the distance of the Earth from the Sun was known and thought to be the same at various key points in the solar annual cycle, was shown to be FALSE.”

The point is that that is not a “premise”. There are precise observations of all the relevant distances dating back to the 18th century. These measurements show that the earth-sun distance varies sinusoidally by something of the order of a couple of million miles in a well-known cycle with a period of almost exactly one year. This is because the earth describes an elliptical orbit around the sun, obeying Einstein’s general theory, and consequently to an extremely close approximation, Newton ’s laws and Kepler’s law.

There are tiny deviations from that elliptical orbit as a consequence of gravitational perturbations due to the other bodies in the solar system. These things are measurable and observed are they not?

Is your father saying that Herschel was wrong, Kepler was wrong, Newton was wrong or NASA is wrong, or what? If the accepted earth-sun distance could be out by something of the order of a million miles or so, this would cast doubt on the other interplanetary distances, so how did NASA manage to get the various interplanetary probes so precisely positioned?

If the book is in the Cambridge University Library, I’ll borrow it when I’m next there, but the argument sounds implausible to me.

*********************************************************************

Hello Joe

What you say about the “..precise observations of all the relevant distances dating back to the 18th century. These measurements show that the earth-sun distance varies sinusoidally by something of the order of a couple of million miles in a well-known cycle with a period of almost exactly one year.”

Absolutely correct, this is the well known difference between the Perihelion and Aphelion and is why the Southern hemisphere summer is hotter than ours. This is not the distance I am describing; I will come back to this vital point later if I may.

You stated, “This is because the earth describes an elliptical orbit around the sun, obeying Einstein’s general theory, and consequently to an extremely close approximation, Newton ’s laws and Kepler’s law.”

If we are going to be precise about this, I must take issue with this statement. I think you are saying, like most people do, that the Earth orbits the Sun: That is incorrect. The orbital forces of all the masses of the solar system, resolve to a theoretically common point, called the Barycentre. This point travels in a nearly straight line, i.e. the orbit of the Galaxy, at a constant speed and all the solar masses orbit this point, but because the Sun is in between the Earth and the Barycentre, then as a consequence the Earth goes around the Sun. The Sun’s orbital time of the Barycentre being ten times slower than the Earth’s.

Ref: “There are tiny deviations from that elliptical orbit as a consequence of gravitational perturbations due to the other bodies in the solar system. These things are measurable and observed are they not?” I will come back to this important point when describing the earth-sun distance mentioned above.

Ref. “Is your father saying that Herschel was wrong, Kepler was wrong, Newton was wrong or NASA is wrong, or what?”:-

Herschel, who discovered the planet Uranus in 1781 is questioned about being wrong; about what?

Ref. Kepler’s laws of planetary movements which states that the planets sweep equal areas of their Ecliptic Plane orbit in equal amounts of time, is only true in that plane, which is a human manufactured concept. In reality, that plane does not exist; therefore neither does the mathematical derivatives.

As to Newton being wrong; it is emphasised in the book how right he is, as much of the calculations were based upon Newton ’s laws of motion.

NASA has certainly been unable to answer the questions about the sunspot cycle mystery, with regards to their control and predicted frequency. Page 93 of the book covers this point.

Ref. “If the accepted earth-sun distance could be out by something of the order of a million miles or so, this would cast doubt on the other interplanetary distances, so how did NASA manage to get the various interplanetary probes so precisely positioned?”.

NASA can not launch a rocket to land on a distant Planet or arrive at a remote position, with only the initial guidance. The fact is that interplanetary probes are constantly updating their position, based upon measurements of pre-selected ‘fixed’ stars that are entered into their onboard computers and make a number of key course corrections en-route, especially when taking advantage of the gravitational slingshot effect of an approaching body to gain momentum.

Now I come to the point regarding previously unknown changing distances.
Lanscheit and others did work regarding the orbit of the Sun about the Barycentre, variously described as a ‘loop de loop’ of this position.

My fathers work mainly verifies their calculations but he went a step further in using the 3D model. Scientists know of this significant ‘wobble’ but the assumption they made was that when the Sun moved position, the Earth moved with it, No!! This is the discovery my father made and nearly all his subsequent work came about because of it. The position of the sun relative to the Barycentre can not be done by direct observation because the sun is too bright/close and obscures the background stars and other factors. But its position is calculated by using the known positions of the planets and the CG of the Sun is the balancing force in these calculations and hence gives its position.

Apart from all these explanations let’s not lose sight of a simple fact, the results, matching with historical data etc. have been derived by calculations that anyone with the requisite know how, can readily reproduce and the reason that I am so confident that it is right, is because everything fits into place, there is no fudging or making the data fit the answers etc.

My father continues to do further work on various aspects and is finding more and more empirical evidence that shows he is on the right track. With access to a team of experts and a powerful computer there are many paths to explore from this work.

Fred’s books (Yes there is an early version) are only the beginning; he has enough information already for a much bigger volume.

The books are available in the Cambridge University Library, please find the time to read them and by all means ask further questions.

I hope this has sparked your interest to explore this question further.

Regards

Howard Bailey

*********************************************************************

From Joe

You will know from Einstein’s general theory, that you can define your co-ordinate system however you like without making any fundamental difference to the physics. If you choose, as I would to fix the origin at what you are calling the “barycentre” (new term to me) but which I take to mean the centre of gravity of the solar system, and have the frame rotate with a period equal to the galactic orbital period about an axis perpendicular to the closest approximation you can make to a Euclidean plane containing the barycentre’s galactic orbit, then you can dispense with the notion of travelling “in a nearly straight line, i.e. the orbit of the Galaxy, at a constant speed”.

Having thus chosen a frame of reference, you have two questions to address immediately:

(1) To how close an approximation is this frame inertial? Equivalently, does Newtonian mechanics in a Euclidean space answer our needs, or do we need to resort to General Relativity and curvilinear (presumably Riemannian) co-ordinates?

(2) What is the order of magnitude of the movement of the sun’s centre of gravity with respect to our chose origin of co-ordinates (the centre of gravity of the system)?

I think I know the answer to the first question, and given an hour or two I could calculate the answer to the second one, but I would be interested to know what your answers to them are.

*********************************************************************

Hi Joe

I totally agree with your comments about Einstein’s general theory and that for practical purposes the Cosmic year (Galactic orbit) can be ignored, allowing us to consider the Solar system as a closed system. The other parameters with respect to the frame are also correct, but there is an important observation I would like to make clear for any others following this thread, that is, to have a stable configuration, the mathematics show that the angle of the frame in relation to the flight line can only be 45 degrees and square across the axis.

You are also very astute when you say that you would choose to put the origin of the frame of reference at the Barycentre.

In answer to your Para . (1), Newtonian laws were used primarily because of the ease of calculation and have proven to be more than adequate for the job in hand. I suspect you worked this out for yourself!

In answer to Para . (2), The maximum displacement i.e. on the infrequent (about every 5 million years) occasion when all the major planets are on the opposing side of the Barycentre, is, 1.49 million km or to put it another way, a 2.13 radii (of the Sun) shift. Displacements of 800 000 km happen at nearly every Solar cycle (about 10years). Ref. Page 17 of the book.

Please believe me that the following is entirely truthful, it relates to my previous comments that bits of information are regularly appearing that confirm my fathers work e.g. prediction of the last sunspot cycle in July 2006 a year ahead of NASA. When I saw this I nearly fell off my seat!

Yesterday (Thursday 28th Jan 2010) I was browsing the web when I came across this article that was first submitted 1st July 2009;

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0063, it is headed, “A solar cycle lost in 1793–1800: Early sunspot observations resolve the old mystery”.

My father calculated this missing period in about 2005 and published this in his book in 2007, Page 89 of the book. i.e. more than two years before this article appeared. Again this confirms my belief that he has struck gold!! (In the scientific sense)

Regards

Howard

*********************************************************************

From Joe

Basically, you are saying that sunspot activity may be influenced to a large extent by tidal effects caused by inhomogeneities in the gravitational potential in the region of the sun itself, aren’t you?

It is certainly an interesting conjecture, and one I wouldn’t immediately rule out. The difficulty would be getting a plausible model for the plasma dynamics within the sun. I suspect that given the compressibility, the temperature variations and so forth, the material flow is probably chaotic, so getting from the basic conjecture to a testable theory would certainly be beyond me.

Are you also suggesting that the order of 1 million km wobble (the supposed magnitude of which I haven’t yet checked) is not being taken into account by the climate scientists? If it is indeed as big as you claim, it could indeed make about 2% difference in the solar radiation flux at the surface of the earth, but if I am right in supposing that the biggest influence upon that wobble would be the motions of Jupiter and Saturn, then the effect on the earth would mostly be a variation in the difference between winter and summer, and would approximately average out over the course of a year.

I do hope to read the book eventually, but it won’t be until March at the earliest.

*********************************************************************

Hi Joe

I must confess I have very little knowledge of the complexities of the Sun’s workings; all I know is that at times of maximum acceleration/deceleration we see maximum sunspot production and indeed the whole of the momentum graph exactly matches all the changes in the sun spot curves.

The Sun’s displacement curves were based upon the four major planets, their individual Centre of Masses were resolved into a single point, the Planetary Centre of Mass, the track of the PCM was then plotted giving the exact shape of the Sun’s track but of course to a different dimension, then all is needed is to take into account the difference between the two masses (the Sun and the PCM) to arrive at the actual displacement of the Sun from the Barycentre. At any particular time the position of the Earth is known, allowing the true Earth-Sun distance to be calculated.

With this data and simply using the inverse square law, the various distances were then represented in terms of the variation in total solar irradiance received by the Earth. Huge variations were found ranging from a gain of 2.3% to a loss of 1%, giving a total annual net difference of 3.4%. This is a much bigger value than anything currently used by climatologists.

To check that this is correct, various key dates in history e. g. the Medieval Warm Period of 1263 – 1306, the Maunder Minimum Cold Period of 1660 – 1703 etc were studied by analysing the PCM track for those years and it was very clear from the shape, size, orientation of the track and wattage calculations etc. why these temperature swings occurred, in fact once you know how to interpret the plots, it is in effect an astronomical weather map of the Earth with just the shape, size and orientation of the tracks showing you when there are big distance/temperature changes.

The details are more complicated than this in that there are times when it is a global change and times when it is predominantly a Northern or Southern hemispherical change only. Just like the sunspot cycles, the solar energy received can be predicted by plotting the future PCM tracks with a high degree of accuracy. We must of course bear in mind that the matter of local changes in weather patterns is an entirely different and very complicated discipline but at least now the climatologists can use the correct wattages in their climate modelling computer runs.

Regards

Howard

*********************************************************************

From Joe

As far as I know, the complexities of the Sun’s workings are still very much a matter for current research. (That’s scientist-speak for, “We don’t haven’t got a clue, really.”)

My guess is that it is not the acceleration/deceleration that is the prime cause of the phenomenon you are describing. I would expect that the acceleration and deceleration and the sunspot activity would both be caused by the characteristics of the gravitational field in the region containing the sun. The point is that that would be pretty seriously non-linear and the field strength itself would be markedly different on one side of the sun from what it would be on the other.

The field strength would lead to the sun’s acceleration (with respect to the nearly-inertial frame we defined earlier) but its non-linearity is what would lead to the tidal effects, which I am guessing affect the internal plasma dynamics in such a way as to increase the sunspot activity.

Quote

The Sun’s displacement curves were based upon the four major planets, their individual Centre of Masses were resolved into a single point, the Planetary Centre of Mass, the track of the PCM was then plotted giving the exact shape of the Sun’s track but of course to a different dimension, then all is needed is to take into account the difference between the two masses (the Sun and the PCM) to arrive at the actual displacement of the Sun from the Barycentre. At any particular time the position of the Earth is known, allowing the true Earth-Sun distance to be calculated.

Yes. I thought that that would be sufficient.

Quote

With this data and simply using the inverse square law, the various distances were then represented in terms of the variation in total solar irradiance received by the Earth. Huge variations were found ranging from an annual net gain of 2.3% to a net loss of as much as 4%.

Now that’s the bit I have difficulty with. If the variations in the solar irradiance include the sunspot activity model, then maybe fair enough, but I can’t see how you would get that much variation in the annual mean irradiance purely from geometric effects. Or are you talking about that much variation within a terrestrial year?

Quote

To check that this is correct, various key dates in history e. g. the Medieval Warm Period of 1263 – 1306, the Maunder Minimum Cold Period of 1660 – 1703 etc were studied by analysing the PCM track for those years and it was very clear from the shape, size, orientation of the track and wattage calculations etc. why these temperature swings occurred, in fact once you know how to interpret the plots, it is in effect an astronomical weather map of the Earth with just the shape, size and orientation of the tracks showing you when there are big distance/temperature changes.

I presume there is a linear regression analysis of the model’s predictions and the observed temperatures. Or is the correlation to the rate of change of mean annual temperature?

I suppose the answer to that is, “Read the book.” Isn’t it?

Quote

Knowledge

The details are more complicated than this in that there are times when it is a global change and times when it is predominantly a Northern or Southern hemispherical change only. Just like the sunspot cycles, the solar energy received can be predicted by plotting the future PCM tracks with a high degree of accuracy. We must of course bear in mind that the matter of local changes in weather patterns is an entirely different and very complicated discipline but at least now the climatologists can use the correct wattages in their climate modelling computer runs.

Naturally.

*********************************************************************

Hi Joe

Your thoughts about the possible mechanisms of sunspot production are interesting. Maybe in the next few years some new insights will be discovered that links this to my fathers work.

The book gives full details regarding the apparent relationship between sun spot activity and climate change. Measurements show that sun spots have very little effect upon the TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) and therefore do not change the weather. But they are an indicator of the rate of change of momentum of the sun and therefore an indication that the Sun is changing position which in turn, alters the TSI and because they are chronologically close, understandably, people thought that sun spots alter weather.

I have just realised that because we are exchanging views about certain details of this complex subject, I have completely forgotten about the ‘bigger picture’ and may have unwittingly given readers a ‘false’ impression of some the basic points, I will take a few paragraphs to explain what I mean by this:

The measurements of the TSI at key points in the Earth’s orbit, were done in order to take into account the elliptical shape of the orbit, which then enables you to calculate the average annual TSI received by the Earth, the current figure being 1,370 watts per square metre. Because the Sun’s wobble has been ignored, as deemed irrelevant and the general acceptance that the sun’s output is very stable with little change due to sun spots; This has led the IPCC to declare that the Earth’s climate is essentially a closed system; This means that any changes in the climate are now due only to mans input, hence the term AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming)

Some people say to the IPCC it is wrong because various geological records show that global ices ages etc. are a natural event and man has little effect. They are getting their wires crossed here because it is a matter of time scales. The IPCC know that ice ages have come and gone and will continue to do so, because of very long term changes in the shape of the earth’s orbit over millions of years. But in our current stable orbit in the next couple of hundred years, i.e. a relatively short time scale, the IPPC are saying that AGW will occur, due mainly to man made output of CO2, thereby causing unnecessary large scale disruption to the weather.

When I mention that climatologists are putting various wattage changes into their climate modelling programs, this is nothing to do with the TSI, remember I said this was ‘fixed’ at 1,370 watts. What they are doing is fiddling around with various earth bound modifiers e.g. amount and reflectivity of cloud cover, CO2 levels, reflectivity of land and sea areas etc. etc.

Compared to the planetary orbits the Sun’s orbit is very strange looking, varying from less than 9 years to more than 14 years (Sounds familiar? e.g. variations in the sun spot cycles, this is no coincidence) with tracks nearly circular sometimes and at a diameter of either close to the maximum displacement or very close in. There are times when the orbit resembles a stretched out ellipse, a long loop with a particular direction with respect to the chosen plane of reference, what Prof. Lanscheit describes as a ‘loop-de-loop’, Lanscheit’s work only overlaps very superficially with my fathers work in this respect and has no other connections otherwise.

These loops are very important, because the distribution of the yearly position of the Sun is very concentrated into a particular quadrant of our reference plane. If we study the track for the period 1945 to 1956 we see that out of a 12 years period, 8 of those years favour the Southerly position in the plane of reference that is closer to the Earth at those times, which equates to the months of June through to September. Consequently the latter part of the war years saw lovely hot summers and very cold winters (1944/1945).

Why did my father choose to study the Medieval Warm Period 1263 – 1306 and the Maunder Minimum Cold Period 1660 – 1703? Because these are two isolated, seemingly inexplicable events, which is the reason the IPCC would rather no-one talks about them and tried (and failed) their hardest to hide. My father made another discovery here, i.e. these two periods occurred at the unusual times of double, almost identical, overlapping loops and in each case, were in the opposite quadrant, which is why one resulted in a warm period and the other a cold period, another first.

Some people will say, well if the Sun ‘hangs around’ a certain position for a period, over the course of a year this would even out the temperature gain/loss and therefore cancel out the overall effect. This sounds reasonable but is not right.

Remember that these periods favour a Northern or Southern Hemisphere. Why is this important? The reason is that the only time that appreciable amounts of polar ice cap melting occurs, is when that particular pole receives more heat than usual in the summer time, if the summer time is colder than usual then the ice does not melt at all, or may even grow a bit and consequently the winter is much worse. A ‘hot’ winter does not result in appreciable ice loss. You can now see why the ‘loops’ are so important to weather changes.

Now my father’s work shows that the annual total wattage received by the Earth, is not fixed at all and actually varies year by year; then this needs to be fed into the climate models if any chance of a realistic prediction is to be obtained.

In my first posting I made two bold statements;

“It also shows that Carbon levels appear not to be the driver of temperature change, but rather, the consequence or result of temperature change.” and;

“Fred’s prediction is that the Northern hemisphere will experience a cooler period in the summer time, resulting in the Northwest Passage becoming ice bound again in the 2020’s”

Ref. CO2 levels; When rapid global temperature changes take place, so does the amount and distribution of the Bio Mass responsible for processing CO2. So if it suddenly gets very cold everywhere, due to planetary movements, then CO2 levels remain high and the reverse situation is true, i.e. heating equals more bio mass equals less CO2.

Ref. NW Passage becoming ice bound in the 2020’s; Studying the sun’s track for the period around the summer of 1845, the time of the failed expedition (by becoming ice bound) of Sir John Franklin, to find the legendary North West Passage; The sun’s track shows a sustained period, over a number of years, of cooling of the Northern Hemisphere at this time. The sun’s projected orbit from 2017 to 2025 shows a very similar situation; The book also describes the link this event has with the well known 178 years cycle in weather patterns.

If you consider say a 10,000 year ice age, that geological records show, can sometimes be reversed in an incredibly fast 200 years, logically there is only one mechanism that I can think of, that can produce that effect, i.e. by the Earth suddenly being closer to the Sun.

Previously I mentioned that my father predicted the start of the 24th sun spot cycle in July 2006, 1 year ahead of NASA, but that is not the whole story; The Met Office established The Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction in Exeter , Devon , only 40miles from the author. The science team there was headed by the renowned Prof. Peter Cox. On the 4th of December 2003 my father made an unannounced visit and Prof. Cox graciously agreed to see him for 5 minutes only. 90 minutes later they were still talking! My father showed Prof. Cox his work and asked Prof. Cox to see if he could now predict the next sun spot cycle change, Prof. Cox remarked; “Even we cannot go into the future”; but managed to correctly predict July 2006. Prof. Cox’s parting words were; “You must get this into print”.

In his review of the book Prof. Cox wrote;

“For nearly two hundred years scientists have struggled to find explanations for the undoubted linkage between processes in the solar system, including the Sun itself, on our climate. Fred Bailey has studied the linkage and produced some new insights that are certain to advance our knowledge on this previously intractable problem.”

I did not intend to go through the whole of my father’s book in this forum, but it has been fun trying! I merely intended to make readers aware of new ideas regarding this important subject, when all this breaks wide open and there are large cracks appearing already, there will be massive changes, heads rolling etc. but I am hoping it will result in a true understanding of this subject and more peaceful times.

Regards

Howard Bailey

### 0 Replies to “About Frederick Bailey's "Textbook of Gravity, Sunspots and Climate"”

1. Dorothy Ricci says:

I recently borrowed Fred Bailey’s book, thoroughly enjoyed it and have ordered one for myself with the next print. My only criticism is the rather poor editing, the number of mistakes becoming quite distracting during reading. I sincerely hope that my copy is an improved version.

Regards

Dorothy Ricci

1. Fred Bailey says:

Dear Dorothy,
You can get a signed copy from me if you wish.
E-mail me for details.
You are correct about the poor editing; it is because it was self edited, and
that is fatal! But it saved money. I wrote and produced the book in six weeks,
with no other help except the printing, being a self publisher.

Kind regards,
Fred

2. I made a comment yesterday but suspect it was lost in the spam filter. The gist of my comment was that Fred’s argument was flawed because the JPL records very clearly show the Earth does not rotate around the SSB. The total variance is a meager 15000 kilometers which is normal considering planet perturbations.

The 3D components are used when calculating solar and planet angular momentum, which now shows a discrepancy which could flow easily to fluctuating solar rotation velocities. This work has been done which is a big step up from Landscheidt’s pioneering work and can be viewed by clicking on my name.

3. This is not the sort of theory to be submitted to anyone but an astronomical physicist for peer review. Surely our host knows one, or knows someone who knows one, who can actually verify whether the calculations have been properly done.

1. Howard Bailey says:

This is not a theory but a mathematical construct based on Newton’s laws of motion. Hence anybody who cares to follow the method can verify the claims for themselves. That is why we (Howard & Frederick Bailey) are frustrated that after sharing this information with a number of relevant ‘experts’, none have bothered to ‘give it a go’; including the astronomer Royal Martin Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow. That said some very savvy, open minded scientists have read and clearly understood the book.

e.g. Prof. Vincent Gray, who publishes Enviro Truth in New Zealand, described it thus:- “Fred Bailey’s book is an eye opener… Brilliantly presented.. beautifully illustrated… with convincing mathematical and logical conclusions.” It is not full of pages of references; it is not hard to follow mathematically; it destroys the various myths that abound about sunspots, temperature variations etc. It is easy and cheap to aquire

Some of the replies from experts beggar belief, quite a few regurgitate the theories of planetary motion theories they were taught at university and are so blinded, in that they can not see or believe, anything that challenges their accepted view. They give vague mathematical descriptions of planetary motions that simply do not add up. The following would be our answer to these sceptics and we note that to date, none have replied with a challenge to the mathematical pricipals used;

There are many arguments about the relationship between the Solar System bodies and their common centre of mass, designated as the SSCM.

Simply put; the nine main objects that go together; The Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, ( Pluto has recently been downgraded to the status of an Asteroid ); have a gravitational relationship with one another.

The Solar System is so remote from any other influencing group; such as the star Proxima Centauri, its nearest neighbour; that it is considered as isolated from the point of view of gravitational interactions.

This means that the group acts as a coherent group. i.e., all reactions are restricted to the group and all the forces resulting from these reactions are resolved to zero at any point in time in relation to a given point located within an established Newtonian Inertial Frame of reference.

In essence, what this means is, if we freeze frame the action at any point in time and take measurements within this frame of reference, determining the location of all the nine stationary objects, both in distance and three dimensional direction, such that we have a vector force of mass for each of the objects, in relation to the selected given point within the frame of reference, it will be found that all the forces will cancel out and resolve to zero.

This means that the group’s common centre of mass will not deviate from its original vectored track relative to the inertial frame selected point of reference.

Common sense dictates, that, if one has got to designate a point of reference within the Newtonian Inertial Frame, then why not locate it upon the line of flight of the Solar System centre of mass. ( R = 0 )
That way, when all the calculations are made, the final product result, of zero, will be at the physical centre of the group.

The Law of Conservation;
In a system considered as totally isolated, Newton’s laws of motion show that the total momentum of the system remains constant. All the forces acting within the group, which can be separated out into individual pairs of equal and opposite forces, means that there is no change of momentum between the two bodies in question. Therefore, because the effects of these separate forces are additive, no change of momentum of the whole group takes place.

The centre of mass of the whole group obeys Newton’s first law of motion, by remaining at rest relative to the frame of reference or moving at constant speed, as long as there is no external force brought to bear upon the system.

As all the bodies in this system are basically spherical in shape, it is quite in order to consider each body’s mass as concentrated at a single point; its centre.

Conclusion;
It can be seen from this, that the idea that the Earth follows the Sun as it orbits the solar system centre of mass, the SSCM, would totally negate the laws of Newton.

The summation of the forces under this principle would not resolve to zero. The idea that one can negate the Earth’s force that accelerates the Sun by invoking two separate rules, one for the Sun / inner planets and one for the Jovian group is mathematically impossible.

All the bodies are interacting with one another at every instant of time. At times, the Sun’s attraction upon the Earth and the Earth’s attraction upon the Sun, is being apposed, and at other times it is being assisted, by different groupings of all the bodies involved.

The real time acceleration of these two bodies, and all of the others, is the summation of the group.

As the orbital time of the Earth about the SSCM, is ten times faster than that of the Sun, the distance between the two bodies, the CHORD length, must be constantly changing. Hence the total solar irradiance received by the Earth is constantly varying and it follows that the large scale changes to global temperature can be directly determined by planetary positions.

If you read the book and study the diagrams, it suddenly clicks and you will see the beautful simplicity of this method of predition.

4. There is a major flaw in Fred’s Theory when he states the Earth’s orbit axis point is the SSB (solar system barycenter). A simple test (which I have done) using the JPL “chord” lengths show that the Earth’s distance to the Sun only varies by 15,000 kilometers. This is fully explained by planet perturbations. The trick is to measure the distance from the same point on the elliptic orbit each year.

I have an article on orbit axis points here:
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/04/03/which-point-do-the-jovian-planets-orbit/

Angular Momentum (AM) which is calculated from JPL using all of the “3D” components gives us very strong correlations with the AM perturbations that occur roughly every 172 years and grand minima. Fluctuations in solar AM also line up with solar cycle modulation strength. Using the same calculations and allowing for inertial frames it has been shown that there is missing AM when summing the planets against the Sun. This missing AM has to go somewhere (conservation of AM) and is likely to be balanced by changing solar rotation velocity.

Full report here: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/79

Jose and Landscheidt were close and laid the foundation for planetary theory, but they both missed the vital component that Carl Smith displayed in his famous graph. I was lucky to stumble on this discovery and the rest can be read here:

http://www.landscheidt.info/

Regards
Geoff Sharp

5. Baron Dugger says:

This is excellent information. I knew of the solar distance variations over time, and thought that they would be the only reasonable explanation for the previous cold and warm periods, but never had any significant data or explanation about these variations.
Thank you for sharing this.
Maybe in time, the scientific community will accept the fact that the world (global warming and its causes) is not “flat”.
Baron

6. John Catley says:

This has been one of the most interesting articles I have read in ages.
What a great pity that our wonderful climate researchers so effectively stifle such original thinking by their narrow minded attitudes.
I wonder just what the missed opportunity cost has been over the last 20 years or so.
Anyway, Fred and Howard, superb work. Look forward to hearing great things in future.

1. Hi John,

Just thought I’d let you know that our website, http://www.solarchord.com will go live in a couple of weeks time.

This will detail the contents of the new impending third edition of Fred’s book (and CD) with various articles on various topics, e.g. Sunspots, Gravity, Solar Chord Discovery, Climate change etc.

If you want to contact me directly by email on howardsway@yahoo.com, I will send you a Word file giving an example of the type of articles that will appear, the one I would send you is, “What causes Sunspots”, with a detailed description of the method, mathematics and findings made.

Regards

Howard Bailey

7. Howard Bailey says:

Dear All

I must correct a big mistake at the end of my blog, I have attributed the the review of the book to the wrong Professor, apologies to Prof’s. Peter Cox and Will Alexander, here are the correct passages;

In his review of the book Prof. Peter Cox wrote;

“The main ideas the author puts forward concern the way in which the Sun’s orbit about the centre of the solar system affects both the sunspot cycles and the amount of solar radiation that the Earth receives – thereby influencing climate. This is an intriguing and provocative little book that certainly made me think!”

Prof. Will Alexander from South Africa wrote;

“For nearly two hundred years scientists have struggled to find explanations for the undoubted linkage between processes in the solar system, including the Sun itself, on our climate. Fred Bailey has studied the linkage and produced some new insights that are certain to advance our knowledge on this previously intractable problem.”

Regards

Howard Bailey

8. Like Beth, I think it excellent to learn about at least one alternative theory to AGW (another would be Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory) and also one that can be tested in the short/medium term. It will be very interesting to see if it pans out during the 2017 – 2025 time frame.

9. Robert R. Clough says:

It is refreshing to see a colloquial discussion on possible “whys” of climate in print these days. I am not a scientist, I am an Historian – but we do use many of the same methods for research.

Fully cited and footnoted revisionism which can then be discussed and debated is fine. Fraud and misusing of data is not!

Robert

Note – publish my e-mail if you wish.

10. Beth Cooper says:

Best wishes, Fred Bailey, for your impressive project. Pleasing that you make predictions for the near future , (not the distant future like some climate models), that are able to be falsified if your theory is incorrect. This is science in operation.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.