Solar System Orbiting the Hammar Axis

page: 5
196
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

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.

That's my point; 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.

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...




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
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



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dbriefed
 

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



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Job well done but it still makes no sense to me. I just skimmed thru it for the most part so i will try to read thru it a little later in more detail.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

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

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.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
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 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. Although I did enjoy the article, its not really a precession of the stars per say, but the article is right on track. We go in very precise cycles. Ifs not magic or ancient prophecy. Although it seems the ancients were not afraid to embrace the change, where as the higher up today, want to hide it.

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.

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 } ) .

Also, where are you going with all this ?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

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.


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.

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.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hammaraxx


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.

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.

Another way to look at it mathematically:

What happens when the earth is at the opposite extreme of its current inclination? We know the earth is currently inclined at an angle of 23.4355° to the ecliptic. From our current frame of reference, if we go half-way through the precession cycle, the earth would be inclined at an angle of -23.4355°, for a total change of 46.871°. If we're looking at the sky from London, we'd still have the same angle with respect to the ecliptic, but the solstices would swap. We'd have the winter solstice in June and the summer solstice in December.

Lets say we have a couple markers at Stonehenge that point to the rising sun on the summer solstice and the rising full moon closest to the summer solstice. We want to make sure those still work now that our solstices have flipped. That means the angle between the sun and moon would have to be same at both the winter and summer solstice. So are they?

On the summer solstice in 2010, the sun rose at an azimuth of ~52°. On June 26th, the closest full moon to the summer solstice, the moon rose at an azimuth of ~130°. The difference between those two headings comes out to ~78°.

On the winter solstice 2010, the sun rose at an azimuth of ~130°. And the full moon rose the same day at an azimuth of ~52°. The difference between those two headings is ~78°.

Turns out they are the same! So even though we've flipped solstices, we can see that the sun and moon have maintained their relationship even though precession has changed our inclination by 46.871°,



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

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.
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
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.
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.






posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

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.


Hammeraxx, kudos for your creativity, but this dog don't hunt. Time to put him to bed.

Good luck on future projects!



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Thank you to everyone for taking the time to contribute,
Your most recent posts have offered a great challenge.

Again, I will respond to them in the order they appear in the thread.
But first, a couple of points.

How long does the precession of the stars take?
Hipparchus calculated the precession at around 1 degree in a little over 75 years.
Ptolemy mistakenly thought Hipparchus claimed 1 degree per hundred and used that figure. Theon of Alexandria accepted Ptolemy's number and that stuck for a few hundred years.
Albategni (d. 929 A.D.) calculated 1 degree in 66 years
Al-Biruni (d. 1048 A.D.) calculated 1 degree in 68 years
It is quite possible and almost certain that the orbit around the Hammar Axis is not circular and would therefore not appear to have a consistent speed viewed from Earth. The above mentioned people were brilliant in their time and apart from Ptolemy may not have been in error at all.

Not all stars conform to the precession of the stars. The idea of the precession came about long before telescopes and concerned stars viewed with the naked eye.
The star “Deneb” is said to be the 20th brightest star in the sky. It is one of the most remote stars visible to the eye at an estimated 1,425 light-years away from Earth, well within range of our Hammar Axis.
There are many with arbitrary proper motion vectors and scale factors including “runaway stars” and “hypervelocity stars”. For more information on stellar kinematics of particular stars you can use one of the “proper motion” catalogues e.g. USNO Flagstaff Station.
This is one of the interesting phenomena that lead me to question a wobbling axial tilt.

The orbital plane of the Moon stays constant to the ecliptic. The position on the horizon of the full Moon rise in any given season would not be as constant as we know it has been over thousands of years if it changed. We’re not talking dates here, eclipses and what not, but how far North or South on the horizon the Full Moon rises in a given season.
Please study the following for a better understanding than I can give you:
...wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
...wiki/Moon
...wiki/Lunar_theory
www.hermit.org/eclipse
File: Moons_Positions.pdf
The Moon’s constant orbital plane was one of the last things I discovered that supported the idea of the Hammar Axis. It is the giveaway that the Earth’s axial tilt does not wobble.
Please, study it, understand it.

Ok, time to offer my replies:

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.
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
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...
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.
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.

Let’s have another look at the animation, this time slowed down a bit:

* The full cycle represents the approximate 25,920 year precession period. Each animated step is roughly around 2,160 years.
* The Orange coloured circle represents our solar system and the blue arrow points to the direction of midnight on December 22 in all 25,920 years in the cycle.
* The months around the outside just represent the direction of midnight in those months, again, in all 25,920 years. (If the months are confusing, just ignore them.)
* The coloured dots (the single ones closer to the centre and the triplets around the outside) represent star constellations that orbit around the Hammar Axis. These stars are all within the Orion Spur.
* The Galaxy, or any thing that’s outside the larger spinning circle can be used to represent far off objects that are not part of the precession of the stars. Viewed from the Earth at midnight December 22, they have a different movement than those sharing the orbit around the Hammar Axis.


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.
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 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
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”.
Thank you for linking to that Image.


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.
Actually, distant objects would actually appear to be moving much slower. Take another look at the 2D animation.
I still can’t get over you seeing NGC 891 with your own eyes, awesome!


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.
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 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 understand the strength of widely popular ideas,
Giordano Bruno was killed for them. I’m so glad I live in a different time. The Earth’s wobble is just an illusion viewed only from our planet. You’re right, I didn’t go into the precession in great detail, that is not my intent but instead to demonstrate a model that shows how the tilt of the Earth’s axis stays as true as the line drawn by a swinging Foucault Pendulum bob.


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.
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
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 } ) .
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
Also, where are you going with all this ?
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.
We rejoiced when we circled the Sun, now we can again as the Earth becomes more “solid ground”.


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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
Here are the important links again regarding Moon’s orbit:
...wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
...wiki/Moon
...wiki/Lunar_theory
www.hermit.org/eclipse
File: Moons_Positions.pdf
I’ll get back to you with a new set of kiddy pools and beach balls.


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!
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.

Once again, it has been a real pleasure to discuss this idea with you. Your posts have been incredibly thought provoking.
Many kind regards until next time.
~Namaste



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Wonderful post! Very informative and interesting, great job!!!



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
I think we all agree that the Earth is changing. I do NOT believe this is some weird happenings or on the level of Aliens ( Aliens = ha ha in this ) I honestly believe this is just a cycle. Only human arrogance would imply that the Earth will never change and stay the same. Why we choose to work against it instead of with it, I'll never know. I realize that governments should be the ones to put into the territorial changes needed to adjust to an ever changing planet. I think that sooner or later governments will have to come out with some sort of press conference as the changes will get to a point where one can not just shrug them off and everyone will be taking notice. As we pass into a new and new cyclic beginnings, views of stars etc ... I will take this as a historical moment in human history, we all get to witness something never before recorded ( as least we think so
) ) .....



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   

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.

While you're correct about the rate of precession, you're incorrect about how long it takes to become noticeable. 10 years is more than enough time when it comes to telescopic observations like this. Everything you see in this image is too small to be resolved by eye. The resolution is so great that even a relatively slow change like this becomes extremely significant. The image I showed is a little less than 15 arcminutes wide. 1 degree is 60 arcminutes, 1 arcminute is 60 arcseconds, thus precession occurs at a rate of 50.3 arcseconds per year. Over ten years that equates to about 8.4 arcminutes. The galaxy should be extremely displaced relative to the stars in this image, yet it is not.


I still can’t get over you seeing NGC 891 with your own eyes, awesome!

Thanks! It's less impressive by eye, though from dark skies you can still see the dust lane going through the center. The camera can collect far more light than the human eye can and reveals far more detail. The image I showed consisted of a series of about 60 second exposures. I have a short video I shot of it recently using a modified security camera attached to the telescope. It's laying around somewhere on my hard drive, I should upload it just for the heck of it.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Hammaraxx
 


Very interesting information. Could THIS be the cause of the polar shift? All the cosmic gravitational pulling back and forth must have some effect on the planet.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Hammaraxx
 


Hello Hammaraxx,



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.


SC: From what I see of your theory (which I am intrigued with btw), I think a number of people here have indicated what appears to be a flaw in your theory with respect to the expected motion of galaxies external to ours. You simply say that the motion of these 'external' galaxies is different (from observed precessional motion). Well - in what way is the motion of these external galaxis different? To what degree are they different - what are your numbers? How do you arrive at your numbers? As far as I understand, the motion of these external galaxies is explainable (and predictable) within the context of existing models. I think people here find your idea reasonably clear - they just need you to present your numbers and explain why you claim external galaxies move differently and what evidence you have to back up this claim.

Regards,

SC



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Just to throw the ideas out there, here's some other information I've come across over the last few years:

Interplanetary Transport Network / Interplanetary Superhighway

Gravitational "slingshot"

Apophis

edit on 19-1-2011 by Time2Think because: fixed typo



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Nice work. You have to be somewhat excited to come about that learning. I came across this last night, which explains earth cycles in general, which you may or may not be aware of. I thought it could be useful to you in your learning.

www.youtube.com...

It is Video 5 in the series. You could watch it up through part 6.

Peace.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Hammaraxx
 


Dear Hammaraxx,

I wish I had a better understanding of the topic you're discussing, but wow. The explanation is wonderful, the synopsis great, your general delivery is spot on (i adore people who are polite and explain their point prior to making it) and it has inspired me to learn more.

S&F!

Regards,
T



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I wish I had more time to go through the thread more.

I would think that all orbits, and all planets spinning on their axis experience drift. This seems to be a universality. I question why we don't see more variability.





new topics
top topics
 
196
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join