It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Originally posted by Hammaraxx
The premise of this idea is in three parts: The tilt of the Earth’s axis does not wobble as widely accepted but instead remains pretty close to constant.
The plane of the moon's orbit has nothing to do with the location of the sun rise.
Originally posted by Hammaraxx
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6b035b15b93f.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f6debaa03d88.jpg[/atsimg]
Notice the plane of the Moon’s orbit of Earth in the above pictures?
This is the causes of the position of Sunrise and Full Moonrise to change positions on the horizon throughout the year, mapped and observed by ancient structures such as Stonehenge.
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.
Originally posted by Hammaraxx
What I have so far presented is widely accepted. Without an obvious cause to a matching change to the Moon’s orbital plane (for which I have found none to date), this alone, is enough to discredit the idea that the Earth’s axial tilt wobbles else it would render structures like Stonehenge useless for determining the position of the Sun and the Moon throughout the year after only a hundred years or so.
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.
Originally posted by Hammaraxx
All explanations for wobbling Earth’s axial tilt that I have, so far, been able to discover make no mention of any adjustment of the Moon’s orbital plane.
Originally posted by havok
My question is, as the ancients seemed to know...
When we pass throught the galactic plane, do extremely significant changes take place?
That is my question because from what I read, this big date in 2012, we pass through it.
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?
Or are you saying that there's another much larger "sun" that our entire Galaxy is orbitting? Or both...
For example, I just saw on the news the other night new pictures of the Oort cloud (apparently they're now calling this newer galaxy M82 - it took me a few minutes to find it online again now as I'm typing this out), where the scientists are saying all of the green colors in the cloud is actually Oxygen...
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.
No, the "plane" is a plane in the sense of geometry, not a metaphysical "plane". The galaxy is shaped in a disk shape, and the galactic plane is a plane parallel to the disk. The metaphysical concept of planes and dimensions is an incorrect understanding of the mathematical and scientific terms.
The spiral galaxy IC 2497, 650 million light years from Earth, and neighboring green cloud. Light from beams of radiation given off as material falls down a black hole at the galaxy's center lights up the cloud.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bed2f2401cad.jpg[/atsimg]
See if you can imagine the imaginary ‘axis’ along the centre of each galactic arm, represented by the two [color=gold]darker lines in this picture (This is the axis I call the Hammar Axis). All of the stars, planets and other stellar objects twist around this axis.
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 CrimsonMoon
Do you think that the constant pole shift could be caused by the magnetic tugging between the solar plane and the galactic plain?
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 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?
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 totalmetal
Care to tell us how it has come to be called the Hammar Axis?
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 LordBaskettIV
Great presentation! I'm sure someone would be willing to throw out some calculations to help you out on this.
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 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!
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 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?
Yes, calendars 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
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.
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 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.
That is what I too believe so again, agree.
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.
You have explained a good metaphor that works perfectly with what I am trying to share.
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.
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 Lifthrasir
How much time does one solar system revolution around the Hammar Axis take?
Please see my answer above to totalmetal.
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)
Nope, because the moon's orbit regresses, its inclination relative to the equatorial plane changes all the time. Its mean inclination of ~5 degrees is measured with respect to the ecliptic. It doesn't matter what angle earth's axis of rotation makes to the ecliptic plane, it won't affect the moon's orbital inclination with respect to the ecliptic plane.
Originally posted by nenothtu
I think you meant the equator, rather than the ecliptic. It's measured relative to the equator, which of course will not change relative to the spin axis, regardless of where the polar axes are pointed since they are part of one solid structure. If one moves, so does the other.
The ecliptic is the Earth's orbital plane, which will vary relative to the spin axes (and the equator) because of the "wobble" inherent in precession.