Home Performance of Sunspot/Solar Activity Predictions

Hello, my name is John Nordberg. I have been getting some notoriety lately for my predictions of solar activity and sunspots. Recently, I have been interviewed by Art Bell on his radio talk show, Coast to Coast AM, and with Eliot Stein on The purpose of this page is to summarize my predictions and compare them with the actual solar activity that has occurred since 8/31/1999 when I publicly made the predictions on Art Bell's show.

Measures of Solar Activity

First of all there are many measures of solar activity. Some are:

These are just a few parameters. There are many more. If you would like to independently verify my information, two great websites are:

Current Solar Data

Solar Terrestrial Activity Report

Overview of My Solar Theory

You might be wondering, what exactly is this guy's solar theory. In short, it can be summarized as:

  1. I define time as a constant quantity of motion, equal to what others now call the speed of light. I call this the Speed-of-Light Definition of Time.
  2. I measure motions as a ratio of two distances: the distance an object travels/divided by the distance light travels.
  3. I do not use not use Special Relativity. The Speed-of-Light Definition of Time is an alternative but equivalent formulation of SR. (Like the difference between Euclidean and Non Euclidean Geometry.)
  4. In this 3-dimensional view of space, I describe everything in terms of electromagneticgravitational waves. Either moving "light" or "light" spinning around itself in spherical standing waves. These spherical "standing waves" are elementary particles such as: neutrinos, electrons, protons, etc.
  5. My, grand unification theory -- which I call the Ball-of-Light Particle Model -- has only three fundamental forces: Electric, Magnetic, and Gravitational.
  6. They always act at right angles to each other.
  7. The traditional "Strong" and "Weak" forces are mutually dependent upon these 3 fundamental forces and are not fundamental in my physics, but derived.
  8. The Ball-of-Light Particle Model can be summarized by the equation: E cross B equals G. The electric field cross the magnetic field equals the gravitational field.
  9. I do not use General Relativity, the Ball-of-Light Particle Model essentially replaces it. The Ball-of-Light Particle Model is essentially a Euclidean form of GR.
  10. The Ball-of-Light Particle Model predicts all elementary particles are spherical standing waves of electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields. (This is not "electromagnetic" mass, but rather "electromagnetgravitational" mass.)
  11. It predicts there is no limit to the size of a ball-of-light, other than the sum of all of the mass and energy of the universe.
  12. It predicts atomic nuclei are single particles, not neutrons and protons held together by a strong force.
  13. It predicts the origin of the universe was not a "singularity" but rather an all encompassing ball-of-light.
  14. It predicts the single original ball-of-light decayed into smaller balls of light.
  15. It predicts that the cores of galaxies are not "black holes" but rather massive balls-of-light. (Technically, there is little difference between a black hole and a ball-of-light.)
  16. It predicts that massive electromagnetic fields on the surface of the cores of galaxies "induce" or "make" smaller balls-of-light that are ejected and become stars.
  17. It predicts the cores of stars are massive elementary particles. (In our sun the core is about a third of the overall diameter of the sun.)
  18. It predicts the main source of energy of a star is not fusion, but the decaying central core.
  19. It predicts that a "sunspot" is caused by a ball-of-light -- and is small by the core's standards, but massive by our standards.
  20. It predicts these sunspot balls-of-light are "induced" or "made" by the massive electromagnetic fields on the surface of the core of the star.
  21. It predicts that the outer plasma layer of the star can interact with these fields on the core, and the core fields can interact with the outer plasma layer.
  22. It predicts that when a star has planets, the planets will cause the star to wobble. However, the core and the outer plasma envelope will not wobble together at the same rate.
  23. It predicts that the fields on the surface of the core will cause differential rotation of the outer plasma envelope.
  24. It predicts that some sunspot balls-of-light are stable and some are unstable. Stable sunspots can float in plasma layer for weeks before completely decaying. Unstable sunspots can explosively decay.
  25. It predicts that the x-ray bright points on the surface of the sun and in the corona of the sun are caused by explosively decaying balls-of-light. Thus, the x-ray flux of the sun is one of the best indicators of solar activity.

Overall structure of the sun and other normal stars

This graphic summarizes the overall structure:

  1. Inner core with electromagnetic fields. (The fields are enlarged for purposes of illustration.)
  2. Black area is a void between core and outer plasma envelope caused by electromagnetic repulsion. Similar to the gap between atomic nuclei and electron orbits.
  3. Inner zone (redder) of the plasma envelope -- which is burning via fusion according to traditional theory. (However, there is not enough plasma burning via fusion to produce the amount of neutrinos that traditional theory predicts. That is why the traditional theory of how stars burn via fusion over predict how many neutrinos should be coming from the sun.)
  4. The outer zone (yellower) of the plasma envelope -- which is just hot plasma -- is bubbling due to interaction with the core's strong electromagnetic fields.
  5. There is essentially no difference between any of the elementary particles in the outer plasma layer except size. The massive elementary particles that create sunspots are so large that they may be hundreds or even thousands of kilometers in diameter.

The wobbling sun

As the sun wobbles -- due to gravitational interaction with the planets -- it also rotates on its axis. Since the core is one solid object, and the outer plasma layer is a fluid plasma, these two main parts of the sun will wobble differently. Imagine a washing machine that has an unbalanced load. As the inner drum -- the basket part that holds the clothes -- spins out of balance, it hits the outer drum -- the part that holds the water -- of the washing machine. In the same way, as the core of the sun wobbles within the plasma layer, it electromagnetically interacts with the plasma layer. The core "bumps" into the plasma. In essence, this sets up massive electromagnetic waves on the core of the sun that are not harmonic, which in turn induce larger than normal elementary particles -- the particles that are at the center of sunspots. As these unusual particles decay, they increase the sun's solar flux. Often, they escape from the surface of the sun and explosively decay in the corona, making the millions, or billions of x-ray bright points that constantly surround the sun -- but are even more numerous when the sun is active. These decaying balls-of-light in the corona also superheats the corona beyond what traditional theory predicts.

Gravitational interaction with the planets

Traditional astrophysical theory does not predict what my Ball-of-Light Particle Model predicts with respect to the sunspot cycle. Normally, astronomers dismiss that the planets could possibly have any impact on solar activity because they use the wrong physics. What they do is this:

  1. First, they calculate the "tidal" effect a planet has on the sun. (Which by the way is very small.)
  2. Then, they calculate how much this tidal effect would change the fusion burn process in the core of the traditional model for stars. (Essentially, this would amount to zero.)
  3. Then, they incorrectly state that the planets could not possibly have any impact.

With my theory, I do this:

  1. First, I calculate how much a planet's gravitational pull will offset the sun from the center of mass of the solar system. (Which by the way can be great.) (I use a software program from the US Navy called MICA.)
  2. Then, I add up the entire affect of all the planets. (Which by the way can be great.)
  3. Then, I chart how this changes over time. In other words, chart the radial offset of the center of the sun from the center of mass of the solar system -- the barycenter -- over time. (Which by the way can be great.)
  4. Then, I chart how this radial distance changes over time -- the radial velocity of the sun with respect to the barycenter -- and chart this over time. (Which by the way can be great.)
  5. Then, I chart how this radial velocity changes over time -- the radial acceleration of the sun with respect to the barycenter -- and chart this over time. (Which by the way can be great.)
  6. My theory predicts that as the radial acceleration of the core and the outer plasma layer change over time, they essentially bump into each other like an out of balance washing machine.
  7. My theory predicts that as the inner single core of the sun interacts with the outer plasma layer -- via electromagnetic fields -- the core of the sun: becomes less harmonic, has greater electromagnetic fields, induces larger elementary particles, decays faster, and produces greater solar flux.

The Ball-of-Light Particle Model predicts a much greater impact on the sun by the gravitational pull of the planets than does the traditional "tidal/fusion" theory. The sun is spinning. The sun has a tremendous amount of angular momentum. It takes very little wobble of the core within the outer plasma layer to create huge forces, to create the dramatic increases of energy that occur within the solar cycle.

Performance of theory with actual solar activity

I made my predictions of solar activity on 8/31/1999 on the Art Bell show.

This chart shows an inverse relationship, dips are increases in solar activity. The green line called "Now" was on the date of the show. It indicates a striking dip peaking at 11/30/1999. This dip represents a dramatic increase in solar activity. Is this the solar activity increasing as predicted. Yes. Now, how does one quantify this, or prove this? It is too early to tell. However, a magnified and inverted graph of our current time frame would look like this.

The smaller peak on the left -- halfway between the black line and the left edge -- corresponds to the increased solar activity at the end of August and beginning of September. The following dip, to the left of the black line, corresponds with solar activity that did diminish. This dip in solar activity did occur. The jagged portion of the red line just to the left of the black line represented an unsettled time for the sun, a time marked by occasional Coronal Mass Ejections, CMEs, and solar flares. The most striking point on the chart from my point of view was the dip on 11/6/1999 that just precedes a dramatic increase through 11/26/1999. This point made it an obvious target for a prediction. I predicted there would be a dramatic increase in solar activity on 11/6/1999

What happened to the sun on 11/6/1999?

What happened to the sun's solar activity on 11/6/1999? Was there any noticeable increase? Yes. The chart for the sun's X-Ray Flux -- which I think is one of the best indicators of short-term changes in solar activity because it is due to decaying balls-of-light -- looked like this:

Can you see any increase in activity on or about November 6th? It looks to me like I missed it by about 6 hours. Other indicators of solar activity such as sunspots were up as well. But, you may ask, what was happening before this time? A similar chart from 11/3/1999 looked like this:

Notice how the blue line is bottoming out. While the sun was active, and there were major decaying balls-of-light creating bursts of x-ray radiation, overall, the chart was low. You may ask, was it a fluke? Were the x-rays just higher on the end of 11/5/1999 and on 11/6/1999? No, it wasn't. A chart from 11/9/1999 looked like this:

There is no doubt, there was a dramatic increase at almost the exact time predicted. From 11/11/1999:

The chart is still high. From 11/13/1999:

From 11/16/1999:

From 11/18/199:

From 11/20/1999:

Obviously, the dates of 11/19/1999 and 11/20/1999 calmed down, but notice that the overall values for X-ray Flux are still much higher than normal.

For 11/22/1999:

Wow! Again, the Ball-of-Light Particle model predicts each of the spikes in X-ray flux is caused by an exploding ball of light! Traditional theory of star formation -- a collapsed ball of gas and dust burning via nuclear fusion -- does not predict such sudden increases of X-ray solar flux.

For 11/26/1999:

Again, my model of sun predicts that the inner planets -- Mercury, Venus, and Earth, will affect the core of the sun, and its wobble. The peak for this change in acceleration will occur somewhere between 11/26 and 11/28/1999. Therefore it is to be expected that there would be dramatic solar activity on these dates.

For 11/28/1999:

It is not visible on this chart, but on the 28th there was an additional M-class flare. A total of 8-9 M-class flares and an X-class flare! Again, this chart represents the actual results for what I predicted a couple of months ago would be a major peak in solar activity. Wow. Now let us see if the sun starts to settle down in the next few weeks. Remember, my charts represent how the sun's acceleration is changing. This peak represents when the sunspots would be created. According to the Ball-of-Light Particle Model, the latest sunspots that were created in the last couple of days are just now starting to float up through the outer plasma layer of the sun. They are like time-delayed bombs, they could explode at any time, and some may last weeks. As the sun rotates, sunspots that are just now forming, or will surface in the next week, will rotate around and come into view. Some of these new spots may only be on the back side of the sun.

What do you think of this last chart?

As far as sunspots are concerned, the count is much lower than I expected for this date. I will put up information specifically on sunspots within the next week.

Anyhow, back to the current surge of energy from the sun. There is no doubt, x-ray solar flux has increased during my predicted time frame. Other indicators of solar activity such as solar flux and sunspot numbers have been up as well, but did not stay as high as I thought they would. Will solar activity keep increasing through the end of the month? I predict it will. Will it take until February of next year to calm down? I predict it will?

Note: Between the end of the 28th and the end of the 29th, an event happened that was very interesting. The X-ray flux exhibited a slow decay pattern, with periodic spikes. This is the type of electromagnetic signature I would expect from a decaying ball-of-light that popped out of the surface of the sun. Seeing this signature, I made many attempts to find SOHO images and other images of the sun during this time frame. Unfortunately, every space-based satellite that takes images of the sun appears to have stopped working during this time frame. For example, the SOHO had images like this posted:

Note how the image is rotated and blurred.

The TRACE satellite apparently received no images of this long-term event because it had its sensors focused on the left side of the sun instead of the right side, or the whole sun! Unbelievable!

The coronal image that was posted -- which should have allowed us to see the decaying ball-of-light -- wasn't even from the right date!

Thankfully, there were radio images of this decaying ball-of-light from a ground-based Japan system. In these images, you can see a very large "radio bright" object that was ejected from the sun and just hovered over its surface decaying.

This is an amazing object to be missed by so many satellites! Note the temperatures in degrees K! There were numerous smaller objects that were apparently ejected as well as this larger object. This is a radio image, and it is not as clear as a SOHO or TRACE image would have been, but it is pretty obvious to me just what this object was.

And for December 1st, 1999:

This is the first chart after my predicted peak of the 26th to the 28th. Note how the blue line has dipped to the lowest point since the beginning of November. This is key, and matches predictions.

What exactly were the planetary alignments that caused this activity?

On 11/6/1999 the alignment of the planets looked like this:

Credit: Solar System Live by John Walker (Date and red lines added by John Nordberg)

The two largest planets, Jupiter and Saturn, had pulled the sun dramatically off the barycenter of the solar system in their direction. Venus, earth, and Mercury -- all fast moving planets -- were almost aligned and were turning this "corner" together -- the "corner" defined by the line between the sun and Jupiter/Saturn. The gravitational pull of these three planets had reached the point where they stopped pulling the sun towards Jupiter/Saturn -- in essence, helping, and making the sun harmonic -- and started to pull the sun upwards (in the picture) and away from Jupiter/Saturn -- in essence, fighting, and making the sun nonharmonic. This rapid change in the sun's wobble from the barycenter induced the increase in solar activity.

Many scientists have attempted to predict solar activity. This was the first accurate prediction of a dramatic increase in solar activity in history. I know of no prior predictions that were made so far in advance and were so accurate.

Implications, and, Is this the solar max that some have predicted?

What happens if I continue to predict sunspots accurately with this technique? The current astrophysical theory will come tumbling down like a house of cards. My technique does not agree with the traditional theory that stars are collapsed balls of gas and dust burning by nuclear fusion.

Are scientists watching my website? Yes. Are they talking about it publicly? No. If my predictions continue, will it force them to? Yes. Will I "publish" a scientific journal paper? Yes and No. In a traditional journal, no. In essence, you are reading it.

Is this the solar maximum? Review the first chart above. The overall dip in the chart -- representing the overall peak in cycle 23 of sunspots -- is centered about at 6/9/2005. The largest peak in the cycle 23 will probably occur on about 5/26/2004, and the last big peak before cycle 23 settles down appears to be about 9/14/2005. There is no doubt, these predictions do not agree with what solar astronomers are now saying! If my predictions continue to come true, there is no doubt that my theory is more likely to be correct and traditional theory is more likely to be wrong.

What others are predicting

At this time, every prediction I have heard or read about states that the solar max of cycle 23 will occur towards the end of this year, or early in 2000. Some just say in 2000. However, some have made some predictions that are just hard to argue with:

I won't name names but a three year guess for when the Solar Max will occur is hard to argue with.

Comparisons with past data

A natural question is, How does your predictions compare with past data? Personally, I can't believe it. There is such a high correlation that quite frankly, I believe my theory has to be correct. However, I have had so much to do, I have not had time to put up on my website this comparison. I hope to do so soon. However, I must first obtain copyright permission from a key individual in order to use his graphics.