It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Solar System Orbiting the Hammar Axis

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:31 AM
A fascinating post. I have to admit, most of it is over my head, and it makes me feel like we're really small in the universe. I can't comment on its validity because it's hard for me to conceptualize.

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 08:24 AM
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 nataylor.

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 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.

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 forward.
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 that 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

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 08:49 AM
this idea is the same as the known oscillation of the solar system...the only question is
the duration of this wave or oscillation is said to be between 43 million years and 65 million
years from crest to valley... or crest to crest...(the data is uncertain)...

which does not correspond to the 26,000 year cycle of the solar system physically crossing
a Galactic Equatorial Plane (which can only be an 'apparent' crossing of a galactic plane)

even as the spiral arm itself rotates in the Galaxy at some ~250 million years per orbit

thanks for the pictorial though

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:20 AM
Star and flag for superb presentation and thought provoking material!

What I do not like about it is how you talk about the earth in comparison to the galaxy. What I mean is that he earth is part of the solar system and moves in sync with everything within it. When outside of the galaxy you should talk about the solar system as one body. The earth´s wobble is completely independent from the movement of the solar system within the milky way. You can easily prove that the earth wobbles by measuring the placements of the other planets within the solar system in relation to the horizon at different times over a long period of years.
edit on 2-2-2011 by Waldy because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:49 PM
reply to post by Hammaraxx

Nice presentation, I think you have made a very good point.

It really only makes sense that the stars, in their movement in space, would not be locked into a constant formation.

We have such a tiny window of observation of the motion of the galaxy, even if you count all the way back to man's earliest measurements of the motions of the stars, the time window is minuscule in proportion to the scale of the galaxy.

These is still more to learn than we can imagine.

posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 03:47 AM
going out on the proverbial limb here...

let us assume that the precessional cycle maintains at approximately 25/26 thousand years (i have seen estimations around 25770 and 25900). now if our orbit of this axis was roughly "circular," with respect to 2 dimensions for simplicity, then the orbital velocity would remain the same, which would be the case for your "axis" concept. another idea which i have inferred as i believe others have in the past is: our solar system has an irregular orbit around something else of a much higher density causing an acceleration and deceleration of our orbital velocity around this object.

i believe this can be supported yet not necessarily proven through our current observations and possibly observations you have pointed out from history. as has been stated within this thread observed precession rates have ranged from at least 66 years for 1 second of arc to 72 years for one second of arc. in the past it is possible, depending upon the methods and accuracy of the methods used to obtain the observations of these historical precessions, that our motion about this mysterious object was faster as we were closer to it.

an assertion or perhaps prediction can be made that our observed rate of precession will decrease as time goes on.

these concepts are in no way new as the hindu had a similar concept of yugas that got proportionally shorter until a "bottom" point at which the yugas became propotionally longer again and maintained this cycle. the hindu cycle however is (pardon my use of the term for i do not wish to offend anyone) ridiculously long. in the end the numbers are in the 100s of billions and trillions for universal cycles. they adapted their system of time however to closely relate to the age of the earth, however i do not want to get into that particular postulation as it is more religious than scientific, and i do not understand the hindu sources for the cyclic time as well as i could.

another man, in the late 1800's, attempted to adapt this yuga concept to a more western philosophy. in his book, the holy science, he attempted to identify important similarities between christian and hindu philosophies. in his attempt he used a 24000 year cycle divided into two 12000 year cycles which were broken down accordingly into the yugas except on a more (in my opinion) palattable scale. as his work alone may not be necessarily close to the truth, the concept can be more useful instead. he went on to try and pinpoint our current position within this cycle. im not exactly sure how he determined his point on this cycle, but i believe a good place to start would be the possible decelerating precession.

i hope most of this was coherent and i hope this is an acceptable addition to this thread.
edit on 11-2-2011 by thegiftbearer because: wording wasn't clear

edit on 11-2-2011 by thegiftbearer because: spelling

edit on 11-2-2011 by thegiftbearer because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:27 AM
reply to post by Hammaraxx

Excellent post, I enjoyed it thoroughly. Do you think the solar system is traveling inwards or outwards along orions arm or that is our orbit distance from the centre of the milky way?

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 10:43 AM
A very interesting thread.I will however need to read this one or two times more to fully understand you theory.
The best post i have read on ATS in months

Star and Flag.

posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 02:25 PM
great thread! a jewel of easily understandable information.

posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 12:52 AM
a reply to: Hammaraxx

It makes sense to me. That's how gravity works, objects rotate around other objects of greater mass.. I had already figured it moved above and below the galactic plane, but, for some reason, I imagined it moving up and down like a linear wave, rather than orbiting the dense area at the center of the arm/axis... can you imagine how impossible it would be to have everything aligned perfectly so the movement resembles a linear wave? No it would be bouncing around kind of randomly until it settled into a stable orbit around the axis in the center of the arm...

The only question is, is there really enough mass in the middle of these arms to anchor us? If so, why don't they appear more solid and dense? Perhaps we are not orbiting any mass in the center of the arm... maybe we have a dual system, with a partner on the opposite side of the arm and we are orbiting our common center of mass? Maybe electricity plays a part?

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in