Spiral Precession Hypothesis

Hello,

This thread is entirely speculative and should be treated as such. I am posting this idea to seek views and opinions on this hypothetical scenario I have been working on.

My recent research into the structures at Giza - in particular the 2 sets of so-called 'Queens Pyramids' ('precession markers) - has led me to the view that the rate of precession was apparently observed to have been much slower in former times and has gradually been increasing in speed ever since. The presently accepted lunisolar model of precession cannot account for this 'seemingly apparent' increase in the rate of precession.

I am SPECULATING here that the lunisolar model of precession might in fact be wrong and that the perceived "wobble" of the Earth tracing a precessional circle around the celestial pole might also be wrong. Wrong also might be the length of the Platonic or "Great Year". Let me explain.

It seems everything in our universe develops and moves according to a fixed set of laws. Vital to this development and motion is the "Fibonacci spiral". It seems just about everything around us in the physical universe conforms to this "law". Everything from galaxies to the petals on a flower, to sea-shells:

Fig. 1: A Spiral Galaxy:




Fig. 2: Spiral Cone Flower:




Fig. 3: Spiral Sea-Shell:




Fig. 4: Spiral Precession:




If we are moving towards the centre of the spiral then the precessional arcs or loops within the spiral are becoming ever smaller (in relation to the background stars), thus the rate of precession would seemingly appear to be speeding up or slowing down. The speed, however, most likely remains constant (more or less) but each precessional cycle may be longer or shorter than the previous cycle depending on whether we are spiralling towards the spiral centre (smaller loops) or away from the spiral centre (larger loops). This would then give the ILLUSION that the rate of precession is speeding up - which is what we are in fact observing today. The Earth's polar axis is merelt tracing ever decresing circles which gives the illusion that precession is speeding up - it takes less and less time to complete one full cycle as the spiral circles are becoming less and less as we near the centre of the spiral.

If precession was not a simple circle (caused by the gravitational pull of the moon and sun) but actually a spiral over a much much longer time period, how might this affect what we know and think we understand today? How might this, for instance, affect the Earth's climate over long periods of time?

Hope this leads to a lively and enjoyable discussion.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Hi Scott. Hope you're well.

Interesting notion. The first thing that comes to mind is that a full motion through the precessional spiral could represent a 'grand age' made up of several 'precessional years'. This could account for why some of the world's ancient traditions speak of vast ages whilst others speak of ages lasting roughly the length of a precessional year. For example, Hindu Cosmology tells us this:

The age named Kali yuga or the "Black Age" is now running. The age is to last 432,000 human years in all; of this number, 5,110 years have already passed (as of 2008 CE), and 426,890 years are yet to pass before the age ends.

Perhaps for the Hindus, an 'age' is actually the length of time it takes for the precessional spiral to complete. Whereas for the Mayans, an 'age' could be as little as 5000 years (close enough to half the length of a precessional cycle for comparison).

Also, more abstractly, some people claim to sense time speeding up in our current times. Could this be a subconscious link to that which our ancient ancestors studies so closely - precession and the rate thereof?

The first place to start is to try and get your theory to fit the history of the Earths climate changes, most importantly periods of glaciation and explain how your cycle would cause them.

This website is a good start, and has relatively good data on Earths climate up to 4800 million years ago.

University Of California, History of Earths Climate

Secondly you would have to find how your theory fits within the framework of the Milankovitch cycles, these fit very well with dates of glaciation but it does fail occasionally, it may be feasible that your theory combined with the Milankovitch cycles would create a perfect model of how orbital variations effect the climate.

With the long period between changes it would be quite likely that something like this could have been missed, the Milankkovitch cycle shows that every 41,000 years the axis of the earth will tilt between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees and precession will change every 26,000 years. This may explain some of what is being observed but there could be far more to it.

Finally here is the link to the wikipedia article on Milankovitch cycles,

Wikipedia - Milankovitch cycles

reply to post by Cythraul

Hello Cythraul,

Nice to hear from you again. The "Kali Yuga" - good call! I never thought of that particular aspect of this idea.

Many thanks.

Scott Creighton

reply to post by -Klaus-


Hello Klaus,

Thanks for your posts and comments. Thanks also for the links - UoC link is particularly useful.

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton

Scott, Have you considered the possability of helical motion as opposed to spiral. A spiral can be considered the expression of a helix with a constraint on one dimension. I do not mean to nit pick or sidetrack, I am just wondering if you have excluded this after consideration. I think the motion of astronomical object is helical, even though the current mathematics of physics is simplified to planar models. Our conceptualization is still primative, but our knowledge exceeds the models if we simply apply our understanding.


This would explain the constance of speed and duration you referred to.
A helix presents a rather finite and terminal conclusion. At least if inwardly directed.


[edit on 4-8-2008 by Cyberbian]

You're welcome Scott. Keep us posted on how the theory develops. I'll add to the thread when and where I have something further to contribute.

reply to post by Cythraul

Hello Cythraul,

Cythraul: Keep us posted on how the theory develops.

SC: It seems that "Spiral Precession" may be linked to Plate Techtonics. users.indigo.net.au...

Plate tectonics ignores the three critical aspects of transform faults that are arguably the most important features of ocean floors available to interpret global geology.

1. The connected, single-set, global extent of their growth (figures below).
2. The aggregate, spiral symmetry shown by that growth relative to the Earth's rotational axis.
3. The stepped offsets of transform fault terminations by which the enlargement of the ocean floors is inscripted.

Source: users.indigo.net.au...

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Cyberbian

Hello Cyberbian,

Cyberbian: Scott, Have you considered the possability of helical motion as opposed to spiral.

SC: To be honest I am not entirely sure what the precise nature of the hypothesised spiral would be, only that it might help to explain the apparent acceleration/decceleration in observable precession. It is, however, an interesting point you make regarding helical motion. See my reply to Cythraul above or follow this link:

[url]http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/drivel.html[url]

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Thank you for the reply Scott, now that I have had a second read through of this thread, it occurs to me that if precession were the model for the earths wobble, then a spinning top would be a suitable example of the behavior. A spinning top will increase the rate of wobble with smaller and smaller wobbles in a circular motion, but at some point it becomes dramaticaly unstable and begins to jerk violently with increasingly fast wobbles. This quickly comes to a violent end. So the model is not perhaps so good for what would occur in the vacuum of space. At the point of the bitter end on earths surface, it might become it's most interesting in space. I wonder how a top behaves in space now?

I think we do not know understand well enough how the planets maintain their spin. It may be that they periodically get a boost, and then run down again. I think that if the Earth were slowing down someone would have noticed in the last 1000 years though. This in my opinion is the weak point in your hypothesis.

The earth's crust is floating on a sea of molten lava, with a spinning iron core in the center from what I am told. I think it is reasonable to attribute the wobble of the earth simple slippage between the crust and the core. The pole shift is an entirely different event, although they undoubtedly effect one another.

Here is a wild thought, what if the difference in size of precession were related to the relative expansion of the universe which we use for comparison. We could still be precessing at the same scale and appear to be precessing in smaller motions. If that were so, we could then use the apparent change to estimate the rate of expansion of the universe.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by Cyberbian]

[edit on 7-8-2008 by Cyberbian]

magnetic pole movement= alignment of mag field to growing influence (approaching mag field)

spiral precession/tighter oscillation= alignment with strengthening/ APPROACHING grav field approx -30 degrees tilt from ecliptic
(lithosphere's heaviest sections pursuing equilibrium with approaching grav field)