Thank you for all your replies.
I will attempt my answers in order of your posts:
Originally posted by CrimsonMoon
Do you think that the constant pole shift could be caused by the magnetic tugging between the solar plane and the galactic plain?
This is a
subject that intrigues me. I am no expert on pole shifts, but it is my understanding and I may be quite incorrect here, is that the polar shifts are
due to strong solar wind effects collapsing our magnetic field and toppling it over and there may or may not be a cycle to this event.
Originally posted by ngchunter
If the galactic arms spiraling and corkscrewing is what causes the appearance of precession, then precession should not affect the positions of
distant galaxies. The stars should appear to precess, but entire galaxies separate from ours should not (save for their own internal spiraling
motion), so that should cause a rather large apparent motion of galaxies relative to stars within our galaxy, should it not?
Exactly! I think
the idea helps explain some of the strange and mysterious ‘movements’ of many interstellar objects viewed from Earth that can not be accounted for
using the ‘old’ wobbling Earth’s axis theory.
Originally posted by totalmetal
Care to tell us how it has come to be called the Hammar Axis?
Yes, it's just a little bit of Ego indulgence, a vice I occasionally enter
into. A chance to put a slight variation of my name “Hammaraxx” to something greater than myself, that’s all. Please forgive me.
Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
Great presentation! I'm sure someone would be willing to throw out some calculations to help you out on this.
That would be totally awesome,
I’m defiantly no expert in that area. I’m just like the wheel maker who sees a circle and doesn’t know pi.
Originally posted by Heckren
There's a major hole in your theory. It has been proven that our home galaxy isn't Milky way, but instead we belong to dwarf galaxy that is
stretched around it. More here: The Milky Way - Welcome to your New Home Galaxy!
Many thanks for that. Very interesting theory and I’m likely to believe it. I don’t see how this changes what I am saying though as the
Hammar Axis idea and the theory of the colliding galaxies are not mutually exclusive and may work in harmony.
Originally posted by Time2Think
I'm still really confused by the idea of this "Galactic Plane" in my mind there's just too many different possibilities - for example are you
saying that our Galaxy actually travels into different "planes" aka dimensions?
I see nenothtu
has answered you. The ‘Galactic
Plane’ I refer to can also be thought of as the galactic equator. If you picture a spinning dinner plate as being a galaxy and then look at it from
the side you are viewing the plates ‘plane’.
Originally posted by nataylor
If it stayed constant, the timing of the solstices would not change. They do change, hence the difference between the
tropical year and sidereal year. If it
weren't for those pesky leap days we get with the Gregorian calendar, we'd be having winter starting in September this year.
are human constructs and require tweaks occasionally, the universe cares not if we count by ten or by thirteen it just keeps on turning.
Originally posted by nataylor
The plane of the moon's orbit has nothing to do with the location of the sun rise…
…No, it wouldn't stop things like Stonehenge from working. The location of the sun at solstice is always going to be the same, despite the
precession of the earth. Why? Because the solstice is defined as the day the each of the poles is at it's closest point to the sun. While the
actual day of the tropical year that occurs on will change, it will always always happen.
I totally agree with you there 100%. The sun will
continue to rise and set where expected at all times in the year under both models, the theory of a wobbling Earth axial tilt and the idea of the
Hammar Axis. The Moon’s orbital plane is the cause of the positional relationship between the Sunrise and the Full Moon
rise and how they
‘trade places’ during the year. That relationship would change if the tilt of the Earth's axis wobbled.
Originally posted by nataylor
The orbital plane of the moon will not change with precession of the earth. Its inclination is measured relative to the ecliptic, which is
independent of any precession the earth may have.
That is what I too believe so again, agree.
, Thank you for the video links. Word!
Originally posted by nenothtu
If I understand the OP's theory correctly, he's asserting that the solar system has another, more localized orbit as well, nearly perpendicular to
the larger orbit, but with the smaller orbit confined to the Orion spur of the Local Arm of the Milky Way galaxy.. You could think of it in a way like
the moon's orbit - it orbits the Earth in a close sense, but orbits the sun too, right along with the Earth, in a more distant sense.
have explained a good metaphor that works perfectly with what I am trying to share.
Originally posted by Lifthrasir
How much time does one solar system revolution around the Hammar Axis take?
Our oldest known documentation and study of the precession was by
Hipparchus (190-120 BC). He estimated it to be around 26,000 years. Most modern authors tend to use 1 degree of change every 72 years making 25,920
years for a complete revolution. I would imagine the dynamics to be interrupted by random events every now and then so an accurate calculation could
be near impossible.
Originally posted by Echtelion
This doesn't explain your strange obsession with "hammar (sic) axis" and putting hammer axes in your illustrations…
… (I won't link to online book store to not make cross-promotion, but a web search can easily get you to it)
Please see my answer above to
said is correct.
I’m trying to avoid this thread being an advertisement, as you pointed out that can be found in a quick search it is the idea itself which I am most
interested in discussing.
When Isaac Newton’s buddies, who he had spent many years discussing physics with, asked him for a bit of credit to his ideas, he told them “No!”
as he considered that they had only a “lucky hunch” and lacked the fortitude to make anything of it. Not having formal ‘qualifications’ in
this arena, the book is merely my proof of claim to its invention allowing me to freely discuss it without suffering the same fate at the hands of
some great mathematician. You may ignore the fact that it is there.