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.
But the gravitational pull of the stars in the Galactic (Milky Way) plane is slowing down the Sun's escape.
Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Are you suggesting that the sun is spiraling along the galactic arm like a charged particle along a magnetic line of force? - then all of the planets need to have the exact same degree of charge - otherwise ther would be wierd orbital anomalies.
This simple animation was created by Nassim Haramein and The Resonance Project Foundation
Originally posted by Hammaraxx
&
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.The parts in the above quotes by you I have put in bold could appear like a bet both ways.
Originally posted by nataylor
While the earth's precession would change the angle between the earth's axis of rotation, the plane of the ecliptic, and the plane of the moon's orbit, those two planes, because they are essentially fixed to one another, would change at the same rate. Since they'd change at the same rate, they would maintain their positional relation relative to one another.
Originally posted by Hammaraxx
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.
I have found no reasonable explanation for the two orbital planes to be 'fixed' to one another nor an attempt to explain that at all for that matter. Theories of wobbling axis tend to ignore the moon’s orbital plane.…wiki/Moons_orbit
How is it a bet both ways? The ecliptic plane exists independent of the location of the earth's axis of spin. The moon's orbital plane is measured in reference to the ecliptic plane. So you need to explain how any change in the earth's axis of spin would change the moon's orbital plane with respect to the ecliptic.
Originally posted by Arken
You deserve more than one Star and Flag!
Thanks for this!
Originally posted by nataylor
How is it a bet both ways? The ecliptic plane exists independent of the location of the earth's axis of spin. The moon's orbital plane is measured in reference to the ecliptic plane. So you need to explain how any change in the earth's axis of spin would change the moon's orbital plane with respect to the ecliptic.
Thank you zorgon, I’ve had great pleasure reading through your threads. The strange direction of the Sun’s path is another mystery I believe the Hammar Axis solves.
Originally posted by zorgon
I did an article for kids some time ago
What is the Speed of the Earth?
www.thelivingmoon.com...
The portion of determining the motion of the solar system to include those vectors...
What is the speed of the Solar System?
(by Amara Graps)
Or, how fast is the Sun (Solar System) hurling towards the constellation Hercules?
From the book: _Guide to the Galaxy_, 1994; Henbest and Couper; Cambridge University Press.
The Sun is moving towards Lambda Herculis at 20 kilometers per second or 12 miles per second. Or in units "per hour": 72,000 kilometers per hour or 45,000 miles per hour. This speed is in a frame of rest if the other stars were all standing still.
The three-dimensional picture of the Sun's movement through the Galaxy is a little more complicated.
The Sun is moving upwards, out of the plane of the Milky Way, at a speed of 7 kilometers per second. Currently the Sun lies 50 light-years above the mid-plane of the galaxy, and its motion is steadily carrying it further away...
Stanford University
solar-center.stanford.edu...
This fits in with what I believe also. I think we’re on the same path to some extent and I would love Zero Ghost come join us here too. As he says “I eat this stuff for lunch ”.
Originally posted by ZeroGhost
As far as our position on a theoretical plane of the galaxy, we are always moving away and towards and pass up and over, under and up the plain every few thousand years. In this illustration we can see how we would look if our planetary track was lit as we oscillate in our orbit. Notice the very slight curve of the sun? That would be the oscillatory point weaving up and down along the orbit.
I can’t speak for Zero Ghost, but the answer of the rotating arms of the galaxy came to me like a flash at 6:20AM Wednesday the 20th of January 2010. I jokingly named the axis the Hammar Axis as a play on my name later that same day and decided to keep using it.
Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
Who was first? The zero G oscilation or the Hammar axis?
No No - No, Johhny, No. (not the first time hey?), I’m only suggesting the galactic arms rotate like a spiralling whirlpool.
Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Are you suggesting that the sun is spiraling along the galactic arm like a charged particle along a magnetic line of force? - then all of the planets need to have the exact same degree of charge - otherwise ther would be wierd orbital anomalies.
Woah, Fast moving video. It took me a few watches to get it. A binary star system... I toyed with this idea myself for a while but discounted it in the end through faith in the ancients and their observations. I’m sure they would have picked that up. As all stars in the galactic arm orbit the Hammar Axis it may appear from one, that it is orbiting another.
Originally posted by Trafalgar1805
The solar system is certainly more interesting than is widely thought, but reality is known about by a select few who do their best to keep it a secret. Try the factors shown in this video to plug into your theory:
www.youtube.com...
Our solar system orbits a black hole of at least 120 solar masses, at about 450AUs (fifteen times the distance of Neptune).
Thank you for sharing, I have seen these videos before. Yes, spirals everywhere. Great animation, although I think the direction the Sun is travelling in the animation is “up”. I believe it is more to the side, like the Moon’s orbit of the Earth as the Earth orbits the Sun.
Originally posted by Wolfenz
Nassim Haramein - 3D Solar System, excerpt from Earth Pilgrim
Originally posted by Vio1ion
Don't know if you realised that your last drawing strangely ressembles this:
Originally posted by nataylor
How is it a bet both ways? The ecliptic plane exists independent of the location of the earth's axis of spin. The moon's orbital plane is measured in reference to the ecliptic plane. So you need to explain how any change in the earth's axis of spin would change the moon's orbital plane with respect to the ecliptic.
Well put nenothtu, thank you.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Conservation of angular momentum. Earth's gravity acts on the moon in a far greater degree that the ecliptic, which has no mass of it's own. The ecliptic is the Earth's orbital plane, nothing more.
Great question, I wish I had an answer for you but would only be guessing.
Originally posted by bone13
Am asking a question, in this cycle what type of effects on suns and planets over 25 thousand yrs
Originally posted by Hammaraxx
Thank you for all your replies.
I will attempt my answers in order of your posts:
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?
Originally posted by Hammaraxx
You don't see it?
In one post you say The orbital plane of the moon is independent of any precession the earth may have.
In the next you say the plane of the ecliptic, and the plane of the moon's orbit are essentially fixed to one another and would change at the same rate.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Conservation of angular momentum. Earth's gravity acts on the moon in a far greater degree that the ecliptic, which has no mass of it's own. The ecliptic is the Earth's orbital plane, nothing more.
Originally posted by Hammaraxx
Introduction:
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.
Originally posted by Hammaraxx
Introduction:
The stars actually DO rotate around our solar system during the Precession of the Stars.
The Galactic arms are in motion, twisting, spiralling or rotating as well as orbiting the galactic centre.
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 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’d agree with that.
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.
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, maybe).
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 gringoboy
could this be what your looking for news.nationalgeographic.com... a link from a new thread by www.abovetopsecret.com...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 cringed at that paragraph a couple of times since I posted it too. How about:
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'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 Jussi
I would need a seriously in depth 3D presentation, to understand it
Thank you Polestar, you’re forcing me to be clearer.
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 science; reproducibility.
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 local stars.
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.