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.
Originally posted by Hammaraxx
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.
ngchunter: As an example, here's a comparison between one of my first deep space astrophotography pictures I took about 6 years ago and a sky survey image from about two decades ago. This is the galaxy NGC 891. Later I can also compare it to a more recent image I have of the same galaxy, it tells the same story. Notice how the galaxy is still in the same place relative to the stars. They should be different by at least 10 arcminutes if your theory is correct. In other words, the galaxy should be displaced relative to the stars by over 2/3rds the width of the image itself.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by ngchunter
ngchunter: As an example, here's a comparison between one of my first deep space astrophotography pictures I took about 6 years ago and a sky survey image from about two decades ago. This is the galaxy NGC 891. Later I can also compare it to a more recent image I have of the same galaxy, it tells the same story. Notice how the galaxy is still in the same place relative to the stars. They should be different by at least 10 arcminutes if your theory is correct. In other words, the galaxy should be displaced relative to the stars by over 2/3rds the width of the image itself.
SC: If our galaxy and other galaxies were part of a 'super-spur' of a 'super-galaxy' that also rotated in the manner of the Hammer Axis theory then might not this explain 'locally' observed precession whilst the motion of the super-galactic spur would maintain the relative motion of other galaxies with respect to our own? Kind of like a fractal - galaxies within super-galaxies, within even more super-galaxies.
SC
Originally posted by nataylor
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.
While there might be some very small influence due to the oblateness of the earth, the earth's gravity can generally be considered a point source. Thus, any rotation won't have an effect of the moon's orbit.
Originally posted by Hammaraxx
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/69ea0e327d5e.jpg[/atsimg]
It is precisely the moon's constant 5.1° inclination to the ecliptic that leads to the infrequency of eclipses. Because of that angle, the moon only passes directly between the sun and earth twice a year. The moon's orbit does regress on an 18.6 year cycle, but that, again, is independent of the precession of the earth's axis of spin. Its orbit with respect to earth's equator varies from 18° to 29° in inclination.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Not just oblateness. The tidal bulges, and the dynamics involved, have to be taken into account. That's what pulls the moon towards an (Earth) equatorial orbit. Now, obviously that orbit is not completely stable, either with respect to the Earth equator OR the ecliptic (Earth's orbit). If it were, we would either never have lunar eclipses, or we would have one every month. The orbit varies with respect to both, but in a predictable way - or else those eclipses couldn't be predicted.
Gravity has nothing to do with my analogy because all I'm demonstrating is that the angular relationship between the sun and moon is unchanged by any changes to the inclination of earth's axis of spin. Hammaraxx seems to think that precession would invalidate ancient astronomical calendars like Stonehenge when it simply would not. The sun and moon would maintain their relationship no matter where earth was in its ~26,000 year cycle of precession.
Originally posted by nenothtu
The concrete slab analogy was nice, but doesn't take into account that the gravity of a far larger body (in that case the Earth) dominates the interactions of all the lesser bodies (concrete slab, water, and beach ball) far more strongly than their own gravities interact with each other. In that way, it's a flawed analogy. Also, it doesn't take into account that the concrete slab (representing the ecliptic) represents not a solid construct, but rather a construct entirely dependent on something else (in this case the Earth's orbit) for it's very existence. The ecliptic is NOT a "concrete slab", and has no mass of it's own at all. Mass is everything when calculating gravitational interactions.
Originally posted by Hammaraxx
Together we'll either crack this for all to understand or put it to bed once and for all.
Many kind regards for now.
Yes, the galaxy would not undergo precession, they’d appear to have different stellar kinematics than the stars orbiting the Hammar Axis as stated above.
Originally posted by ngchunter
A galaxy would not undergo precession in your model, instead all the stars would appear to precess while galaxies do not, resulting in a very high apparent motion of every other galaxy with respect to the stars (50.3 arcseconds per year). This is not what is observed though when we look at the stars and galaxies.
Well done with your photo’s by the way it must have been a thrill to see that for yourself with your own eyes. I’d love to try that some day.
Originally posted by ngchunter
As an example, here's a comparison between one of my first deep space astrophotography pictures I took about 6 years ago and a sky survey image from about two decades ago. This is the galaxy NGC 891. Later I can also compare it to a more recent image I have of the same galaxy, it tells the same story. Notice how the galaxy is still in the same place relative to the stars. They should be different by at least 10 arcminutes if your theory is correct. In other words, the galaxy should be displaced relative to the stars by over 2/3rds the width of the image itself.
i319.photobucket.com...
Sorry Scott, as good as that sounds, I don’t quite follow that. Are you suggesting clusters of galaxies are moving in sync in yet another, even larger, spiral?
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: If our galaxy and other galaxies were part of a 'super-spur' of a 'super-galaxy' that also rotated in the manner of the Hammer Axis theory then might not this explain 'locally' observed precession whilst the motion of the super-galactic spur would maintain the relative motion of other galaxies with respect to our own? Kind of like a fractal - galaxies within super-galaxies, within even more super-galaxies.
Wow, wow, wow, Yes! Absolutely! This may also support concerns about the approach of the galactic plain. It could be easy to imagine the gravitational effects of other galactic arms to be greater at each “Interaction Zone”.
Originally posted by n55rc
I think the 13,000 year events could be caused by the close interactions of the arms as we cross the Galactic center. See the attached crude image of what I mean.
edit on 17-1-2011 by n55rc because: mis spelled
Actually, distant objects would actually appear to be moving much slower. Take another look at the 2D animation.
Originally posted by ngchunter
NGC 891 is roughly 27.3 million light years from earth.
en.wikipedia.org...
Let's find out what the 50.3 arcseconds/year rate of precession equates to at the distance of that galaxy. Arc length distance equals the radius of the sphere times the separation in radians. 50.3 arcseconds = 0.000243861282 radians. The radius in this case is 27,300,000 light years. That means the galaxy must be moving at a speed of 6,657.413 light years per year (that's 18.2 light years per day or more than three quarters of a light year per hour). Even the starship enterprise couldn't keep up with that. This is, of course, a relatively close galaxy though it's not a part of the Local Group of galaxies. More distant galaxies only become more absurd.
Ok, but I don’t have a binary star theory, that has been offered by others and I have only stated that I don’t disagree. On that all I can say is “I don’t know, perhaps and perhaps not”.
Originally posted by VI0811
I'm sorry, but I disagree with some of your theory. Being part of a binary system is a good theory, not yet proven. However, in 1982 NASA came out with a report defining a 12th celestial body that comes in and out of our system every X amount of years. This can be looked up on through headlines of the time. Its very possible, that this could be a brown or red dwarf, which would explain why this object it so hard to spot.
I understand the strength of widely popular ideas,
Originally posted by VI0811
I believe the earth's wobble has been proven time and time again and is a valid theory. You also didn't mention the precession on the earth itself in the right context ( although the article is good ) . In which the Earth shifts 1 degree every 72 years following a 25,920 cycle, which in turn is divided into 12 solar cycles of 2160 each. ( give or take, each cycle is not exact, some are longer that the other ). marking climate change on each cycle, changes in position of the Earth relative to the stars and the sun.
I’m not sure about your figures there and the effects sound highly speculative. “Bouncing up and down”? Perhaps in regard to a 2D side view representation of our spiral path, then yes.
Originally posted by VI0811
We also run in to the Galactic equinox/equator once every 35,000,000 years. Which in turn can cause gravitational pulls on the earth, the other planets, and the sun. We actually bounce up and down slightly along this galactic equator though out this time period.
Yes, when using dates for eclipses etc. the 18-19 year cycle is important. Monuments such as Stonehenge also track the Northerly and Southerly path and extreme North and South positions of the Full Moon rise on the horizon too.
Originally posted by VI0811
Stonehenge's alignment with the moon only comes into play with the moon every 19 years. The moon's orbit is in a 19 year cycle around the planet ( book = When time began [ other sources within same book very well noted that can be researched ] ) .
I just want to share my idea that the tilt of the Earth’s axis doesn’t wobble as previously believed and I believe it is the model of the rotating galactic arms which demonstrates that.
Originally posted by VI0811
Also, where are you going with all this ?
nenothtu, I think you have demonstrated an understanding of all the points here, thank you for joining in and helping to clear up some of the misunderstanding.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Gravitational calculations for any[/] two masses generally considers them as as point sources, to simplify the equations, and to a close approximation. There is a reason that most orbits fall generally equatorially until the orbital body is at a fair distance from the parent body, when the effects are less pronounced, and orbits tend to get wilder. That's why the solar system bodies fall in a rough plane around the sun (equatorially) until we get to the erratic orbit of Pluto, and farther out the more nearly globular effects of the orbits in the Oort cloud. Likewise, the orbits of the moons of the larger planets, Jupiter and Saturn, fall equatorially until we get to the outer moons,which again orbit more eratically.
The concrete slab analogy was nice, but doesn't take into account that the gravity of a far larger body (in that case the Earth) dominates the interactions of all the lesser bodies (concrete slab, water, and beach ball) far more strongly than their own gravities interact with each other. In that way, it's a flawed analogy. Also, it doesn't take into account that the concrete slab (representing the ecliptic) represents not a solid construct, but rather a construct entirely dependent on something else (in this case the Earth's orbit) for it's very existence. The ecliptic is NOT a "concrete slab", and has no mass of it's own at all. Mass is everything when calculating gravitational interactions.
Yes, I’m sorry, I made the image from memory of what you wrote and I got a few things around the wrong way. It wasn’t till I was posting and re-read what you wrote again that I realised. The principal is the same never the less. I’ll make another image to match your description exactly when I get the time, hopefully tomorrow. I’ve hand drawn it, just not done it on computer yet.
Originally posted by nataylor
Your diagram is incorrect. You're putting the level of the moon's orbit parallel to the slab. It should be parallel to the water level in the pool.
Nothing to do with solstices or eclipses, but the position of the rising Full Moon around the same time of year. Unfortunately the Moon doesn’t orbit Earth in a nice and neat fashion so eclipses occur at different times each year. However, it does orbit in a fashion that the Full Moon rises in the same place on the horizon each season, just like the Sun does.
Originally posted by nataylor
When you do that, you'll see that both northern hemisphere winter solstices are identical and both northern hemisphere summer solstices are identical, meaning the precession had no effect on the relative position of the moon and the sun to each other.
Giving up so soon Polestar? I’ll quote myself back to you:
Originally posted by Polestar
Hammeraxx, kudos for your creativity, but this dog don't hunt. Time to put him to bed.
Good luck on future projects!
I fail to see my own contradiction that you said was there. I would appreciate you helping me see it if you are still sure it is there.
Originally posted by Hammaraxx
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.
Originally posted by Hammaraxx
Remember, with the popular and accepted rate of precession at 1 degree per 72 years, even changes in distant objects would take more than ten or so years to become greatly noticeable.
I still can’t get over you seeing NGC 891 with your own eyes, awesome!
Originally posted by Polestar
Hammeraxx, kudos for your creativity, but this dog don't hunt. Time to put him to bed.
Good luck on future projects!
Hammaraxx: Giving up so soon Polestar? I’ll quote myself back to you:
Originally posted by Hammaraxx
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.
I fail to see my own contradiction that you said was there. I would appreciate you helping me see it if you are still sure it is there.