My apologies for not posting back on this thread much sooner but I am still working on a 3D animation which I know will demonstrate the whole idea
much better than my 2D images have done. That has turned out to be more time consuming than I first expected.
Anyway I just wanted to clear this up regarding the orbital plane of the Moon as it orbits the Earth and an image constructed from a post by
reply to post by nataylor
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
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.
Sorry again about that nataylor,
I realised just after I created the above picture that I had not followed your directions correctly, however they still demonstrate the same principle
as they do when creating them as you instructed, as you can see below.
It has been recorded throughout history that the Sun and the Moon perform the same dance year after year trading places on the horizon. The image
below shows how they appear in the Southern Hemisphere.
It is the opposite in the Northern Hemisphere, in summer the full Moon rises lowest point or further to the south from the Eastern horizon, while the
Sun rises at its highest point or most northerly point of the eastern horizon which matches the view of the Southern Hemisphere’s winter in the
image above. The Northern Hemisphere’s winter matches the Southern Hemisphere’s summer in the image above.
So, it’s back to the original specs for the ‘kiddy pool’ analogy.
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.
Here is the image as requested:
Modified, just slightly, so it’s workable with the ball being Earth:
If the Earth’s axis wobbled, it would not affect the plane of the moon’s orbit around the Earh and that would give us:
Now if we mirror that you’ll notice the drastic change in position of the Full moon:
Here is another view with the ecliptic aligned horizontal:
The difference in the position of the Full Moon would be too drastic to go unnoticed throughout history and that goes against wobbling Earth’s axial
tilt theories, which do not take this into account.
reply to post by Scott Creighton
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
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.
Thanks Scott, you are quite right the
movements of distant objects are quite predictable mostly under existing models and that would not really be altered by the idea I’m putting
My main point is that the Earth only “Appears” to wobble. It is the movement of all the objects surrounding us in our galactic arm’s rotation
while the tilt of the Earth’s axis keeps close to true from an intergalactic point of view, like the swinging bob of a Foucault pendulum
gives us that impression of a wobble.
In the past, I came across mentions of stars and other objects that do not conform to the grand precession. Those pieces of information added to me
challenging the wobbling Earth’s axial tilt idea to begin with. Unfortunately I did not think to make a record of them or from where they came at
the time though I’m sure I’ll be able to track some down over the next couple of days.
I will gather some numbers, names of stars, galaxies, their projected direction of travel etc and demonstrate how that too fits into my model and get
back to you again.
Many kind regards