Once again thank you all for the wonderful questions and suggestions for me to make what I am trying to say more clearly understood.
I’ll answer you posts in order:
Originally posted by dbriefed
If the ams spiral in the same direction, at the hub objects in different arms would constantly collide. If arms were gears they'd have to turn in
opposite directions for the gears to mesh. The only image in nature that would be close would be a drain where arms of waves circle the drain, and
each wave might have an internal spiral. Hopefully our galaxy is not a drain.
I don’t think it will be a problem by the time ‘we’ got
to the centre anyway. I tend to believe the centre is a black hole that concentrates all that goes in and spurts it out the top and bottom at a great
rate. Most of the ejected stuff will find itself ‘falling’ back into one of the spiral arms and start a new cycle.
Originally posted by dbriefedIf we're in a spiraling arm, then the plane is less likely to have concentrated anything. The end of the
13,000 year cycle will be as much of a bust as Y2K.
I’d agree with that.
Love is all there is!
Originally posted by exactlydivyn
It seems to me that a binary star (dark matter star?) model makes this even more plausible. Imagine a strand of DNA spiraling through space along the
Hammer axis. What makes it spiral this way? The other side of the DNA strand, and the "ladder" in between, or the axis, holding it together, if you
will. One star, or DNA strand, is positively charged, and the other is negatively charged, held together by electromagnetic force (or love,
A binary star system can also work in the same model. It would make things a little more complicated to calculate times and distances travelled, but
sure, I don’t see why not. If you picture the animation (a bit further down in this post) as Earth within a binary star system it still works. The
main point of the idea is that the Earth’s axial tilt is not wobbling.
Originally posted by gringoboy
could this be what your looking for
news.nationalgeographic.com... a link from a new thread
yes interesting dark matter or black hole ,come on give this member some credit in this link truly brilliant find,just have a look it may all tie
in,binary star sytem or...check it out just of the press national geographic.
Thank you for posting that gringoboy. I ‘m not sure how to fit
that in though but it was an interesting read never the less.
Originally posted by ngchunter
I'm not following you. I'm not sure what you mean by strange movements of interstellar objects. My point was that this theory can't be true if
other galaxies we observe move with precession. Indeed, unless galaxies all appear to move with respect to stars within our galaxy at a high rate
equal to precession, the theory is false. All you have to do is compare images of a given galaxy taken a few years apart to see that it's not true.
Here is a rough animation I prepared for you to explain what I meant. The coloured dots within the circle represent star constellations that
spiral around the Hammar Axis.
The arrow is pointing out from the night time view from Earth at any given December 22nd. Can you see how the Galaxy in the top right would appear to
travel in one direction then appear to travel in reverse, over and over as we go around the Hammar Axis? All the while the stars orbiting the Hammar
Axis will appear to be rotating around Earth.
Originally posted by nataylor
Say we have nice big concrete slab, build on a hill with a 5 degree tilt. We'll say this is the plane of ecliptic. Then we have a one of those
inflatable kiddie pools sitting on the slab, filled with water. The level of the water is the plane of the moon's orbit. The water, since it is
level, will be at a 5 degree angle to the slab. Then we put a beach ball in the center of the pool. The beach ball is the earth. Now we can rotate
the beach ball any way we want to and that's not going to change the level of the water compared to the level of the slab.
From an observer on the earth, any precession is going to change the apparent location of the ecliptic, but the apparent location of the moon's orbit
will change by the exact same amount, meaning their relative positional relationship will not change.
I’ve created a picture for you using
your description as a guide but I’ve swapped a couple of things around so I could draw them. I’ve also added a house to represent the Sun and a
second pool with the same features so we can have one for December and one for June. The smaller beach balls represent the Full Moon.
Angle of the slab & pool is 5 degrees and represents the Moon's orbital plane, the water level as the orbital path of the Earth around the Sun.
Pools are angled at 5 degrees and the Earths are tilted to 26 degrees in this picture.
Positions A & D represent the angle of the Full Moon closest to June 22nd.
Positions B & C represent the angle of the Full Moon closest to December 22nd.
The Sun will always rise on the horizon according to the month/season where it is expected to under both models.
Observe the difference in the June distances A & D, and the December distances B & C.
As demonstrated in the above picture, if the tilt of the Earth’s axis wobbled, the relationship between the position of Sunrise and a Full Moonrise
on the horizon would change as the Moon's position on the horizon would drastically change over time. At an approximated 1 degree change in 72 years
it wouldn’t take too many generations to notice that their stone monuments, used to track the Sun and the Moon, would no longer function as
Originally posted by Jussi
Wordsome.. This is what I have been thinking about for years.
Those places, which are accurately built in relation to the sun, so that sun can be seen every year from a certain point (that is allways the same)..
would not have those points in which the sun is always sitting at, if it indeed was so that the earth was wobbling.
I’ve cringed at
that paragraph a couple of times since I posted it too. How about:
So far, I’ve not seen an explanation for how the Moon’s orbital plane could move with the wobble of the earth’s axial tilt. Nor have I even
seen mention of it doing so for that matter. Without an obvious cause for the Moon’s orbital plane to change with the Earth’s axial tilt,
structures like Stonehenge would be rendered useless for calculating the position of the Full Moonrise in a few generations.
The Sun will rise where expected even if the axial tilt wobbled. It is the position of the Full Moon that would be most effected.
Originally posted by Jussi
I would need a seriously in depth 3D presentation, to understand it
I'd love to have a 3D animation of this to show you but it’s not a
specialty of mine to do so. I did ask a friend almost a year ago, but he’s a busy fella and hasn’t had the time to do it yet. (hey Frank?
Originally posted by Polestar
Hammeraxx’s theory is creative but contradictory in several places. Disregarding the contradictions, it still fails the basic test of observational
If Hammeraxx is saying the sun and stars in our local galactic arm swirl around an axis (as he did in one post) then this might produce a precession
type of observable (from earth) relative to VLBI reference points and very distant stars but you would see no precession relative to stars that are
moving in the swirl along with the sun; thereby Hammeraxx’s proposition is false, because it does not produce the precession observable relative to
If Hammeraxx is saying the stars in our galactic arm are circling around the sun (as he states in another post) then this might produce a precession
type observable relative to these local stars but you would see no precession relative to the VLBI reference points (extra-galactic quasars, which
astronomers use to measure precession); thereby Hammeraxx’s proposition is false again because it fails to produce the precession observable
relative to distant stars.
For a theory of precession to be correct it must meet all of the precession observables without any conflicts.
Thank you Polestar, you’re forcing me to be clearer.
Please look at the rough animation I prepared for ngchunter
above. Does that clear things up? It shows how the local stars swirling around the
Hammar Axis. Can you see how the stars are ‘rotating’ around our solar system? The galaxy in the top right corner can represent the extra-galactic
quasars you mentioned, they are not part of the precession of the stars but have an altogether different behaviour which has been a mystery, well, up
It is more likely that I have failed to explain myself clearly if you see a contradiction in my idea. I’m open to have errors pointed out once
I’ve removed all confusion from my explanation. Right now, I’m still trying to put the idea into the right words so it is clear to everyone.
Again I thank you for the wonderful contributions.
Together we'll either crack this for all to understand or put it to bed once and for all.
Many kind regards for now.