Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Solar System Orbiting the Hammar Axis

page: 2
196
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

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.
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



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.
The plane of the moon's orbit has nothing to do with the location of the sun rise.


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.
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
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.
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.

As for the rest, ngchunter has correctly pointed out that this does not explain precession with respect to very distant, extragalactic objects.




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Brilliant analysis. Your views on the wobble may explain why the Earth stopped wobbling in 2006 also, you should look into that.

On a side note it really ticks me off when I read some of the brilliance here on ATS from people like yourself who will probably never be recognized for the achievements that they make.
edit on 14-1-2011 by EssenSieMich because: add



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Hammaraxx
 


Well Maybe the Galaxy Operates much like this ! sort of ..

Cymatics ( Frequency Connection )...

Cymatics - Bringing Matter To Life With Sound (Part 1 of 3) ( Please check 4.55 min Mark ! )


edit on 14-1-2011 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
*faceplam*

Ngchunter, you get a star my friend.

Why must people always agree with things that sound smart without actually investigating the logic for themselves. It is sooooo frustrating.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

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.


We are currently about 50 light years "above" (in space, all direction are relative to something else) the galactic plane. In order to pass through it by 21 Dec 2012, the entire solar system, or the Earth at least, if it were to somehow break away from the sun, would have to accelerate to something on the order of 25 times the speed of light. Were that to occur, it would be quite a breakthrough for physicists, but alas none would be left alive to investigate it.

That sort of acceleration would leave less than a strawberry-looking smudge of all of us.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
After looking at this again, I see where I'm getting confused... what I'm wondering is what happens if the "Orion Spur" also moves - these images make it appear as though the Orion Spur is stationary, much like that of a wheel spinning around an axle; what if the "axle" or Orion Spur is also moving so that the entire Galaxy is actually moving in all directions? I'm not very good at all the math, but basically I'm going from a point, to a straight line, to a circle, and then finally to a sphere.
What you're showing us basically looks like that of a Gyroscope, but I'm trying to look at it from outside of the gyroscope...
edit on 14-1-2011 by Time2Think because: fixed typos



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
OK I'm going mainstream on this one guys.
We are in a binary system. Not all binary systems are identical twin systems like here
and here. Some may even be trinary like Sirius
But this one is my favorite from The Science Channel.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

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?


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.



Or are you saying that there's another much larger "sun" that our entire Galaxy is orbitting? Or both...


The solar system, and everything else in the milky way galaxy, orbits a massive black hole at the center of the galaxy, in the direction of Sagittarius, but far beyond Sagittarius (around 25,000 light years beyond it). 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.



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...


The Oort cloud is nearby, at the edge of the solar system, and is made up of thousands or millions of tiny, frozen, orbiting bodies. M82 is another galaxy entirely, most likely containing it's own solar systems, certainly containing it's own stars, and is about 12,000,000 light years away. The two are not interchangeable.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

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.


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.



edit on 2011/1/14 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Interesting and thought provoking (S&F)

You have obviously thought about the mechanics of precession for some time to come up with your theory and to have presented it such a concise manner. I also have tried to understand these motions but find it hard to nail it down to a statistical framework in which it's predictable all the time. I relate this problem to the same problem as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, there's just so many motions that are relative to so many others that you end up having to pick just one perspective to get a coherent predictability and you still never really get one. I find that our biggest problem in figuring these motions out is time, as a single human being or even a generation, there just isn't enough time to observe and measure everything relevant to a coherent theory of precession, other things as well but best to stay on topic. Maybe in 10,000 years we will have enough measurements and information to formulate a sound theory. I like your thinking and expect to enjoy many more of your threads.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Hey hammaraxx,

I may have missed this as I read the OP and scanned the subsequent posts (I have to leave for work in a few minutes), so forgive me if I have. How much time does one solar system revolution around the Hammar Axis take?

I'm asking so I can get more of feel for what this hypothesis implies as far as time scales. Thanks!



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   


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.


Ok, I'll go along with this.. so what exactly is the difference between a geometric plane and a metaphysical plane?

Plane of Immanence

And as far as the oort cloud and the M82 galaxy goes, what galaxy is the Oort cloud a part of? If it is in fact part of the Milky Way, then I guess I'm mixing it up w/ the recent photos of the green clouds of oxygen that were in the news a day or two ago. If so, I'm sorry. (looks like I was mixing this up - apparently the green clouds I saw the other day on the news were from "galaxy IC 2497"):



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.

astrobob.areavoices.com...




Also, as far as black holes go, they supposably suck up everything around them, including light - correct? Some seem to think that black holes are actually "portals" across space time - connecting vast distances together with one another; in other words a "short cut"

Could black holes be portals to other universes?
edit on 14-1-2011 by Time2Think because: added more info.
edit on 14-1-2011 by Time2Think because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2011 by Time2Think because: added info for plane of immanence



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


The answer is a resounding "YES"! There are numerous forces at play when the earth and the Sol System float close, by and through the great galactic plane of the milky way galaxy. Throw in the 2nd sun in our little binary star system and even more dramatic effects will take place.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I don't really understand. All I can say is..if ATS had a bar, we'd have one heck of a lock-in.



Peace (mines a pint)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Hammaraxx
 


This doesn't explain your strange obsession with "hammar (sic) axis" and putting hammer axes in your illustrations.

Thor Hammaraxx? This is the thread you are indirectly using to sell your books online... I see.


(I won't link to online book store to not make cross-promotion, but a web search can easily get you to it)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Echtelion
 


Just because somebody has a book on a topic and also posts about that topic on the internet does not mean they are posting solely to get book sales. I saw no mention or hint in the OP's posts that he had a book to sell, much less advertising for it. Seems to me like the OP wants to get his idea out there and chose this free, public message board to publicize his ideas.

Really cool idea, Hammaraxx! It makes logical sense to me, but I'm not the best with precession and that kinda thing. I can't visualize it all too well. But your pictures were great and I understand quite clearly your idea. I know a few people have made brief critiques, I await your response - I won't claim to know enough to judge your idea myself. Thanks for sharing!



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   



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.


One minor typo.
That should say "grayer"
or "thicker" not "darker" as
the darker line is actually the small
one spiraling around the center line of the spiral arms.


David Grouchy



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
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’.
…wiki/Galactic_plane also see ...wiki/Orbital_plane_(astronomy)


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.
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
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.

Wolfenz, 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.
You 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 totalmetal.
What tetsuo 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.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

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.
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.
edit on 14-1-2011 by nataylor because: spelling



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
excellent work.

I think one the major issues with "viewing" things that are outside us is that we view them from earth and we feel that this is "the" location that all observations should be made from and the only place that observing matters. I suggest this is incorrect.

If you observe the solar system as a whole, with the Sun being the only point of reference, you see things in a different way. There are two center points that matter: the center of the Sun and the center of the Galaxy. There is a tether that connects them and keeps the process moving in an order, the earth is tethered to the Sun, Venus to the Sun and so on. When the Sun drops into the galactic "center" is the important moment, earth's connection to that process is tied to the Sun's effort.

This of course is metaphysical but I think the addition of trying to view things from the anchor, the Sun, can help the above presentation make more sense. Our Earth centric pov is a major limitation.





new topics

top topics



 
196
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join