Gyroscope Earth, Tohoku, Planet X

I intended to put this post into another thread dealing with changes observed by Inuit hunters in the location of sunrise and sunset in their locality. (The far north. )

However, since this post brings up questions of mechanics and motion and gyroscopes, I thought it best to move it to a forum frequented by hard nosed science people.

The post also deals with Planet X the famous (some would say mythical) interloper, reputed to have caused havoc in the solar system in the past and said to be on a return trip into our neighborhood.

I realize that Phillip Plait and others have thoroughly debunked Planet X and that in their view no serious person would even bring it up in a discussion, because that subject is just sooo done with and over. So I am not mentioning Planet X, not even once. The words Planet X will not be tapped onto the keyboard by me.

On second thought, to avoid using the phrase "the p word", I will mention Planet X.

Moving on to the subject of rotational mechanics, I am hoping to tap the wisdom and learning of science and engineering types in the forum.

Here is the post I was going to put into the other thread.

Originally posted by guessing
Maybe there is a large body or something travelling through space near us that is causing all of this. Like the gravity of this body is making other planets , us and the sun all momentarily out of wack.

In a post earlier in the thread I referred to the large earthquake that occurred in Japan recently, the so-called Tohoku earthquake. It is said to have shifted the earth on its axis by a very small fraction of a percent.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
en.wikipedia.org...

The earthquake moved Honshu 2.4 m (8 ft) east and shifted the Earth on its axis by estimates of between 10 cm (4 in) and 25 cm (10 in).[26][27][28]

This information disturbs me a little. The reason is that, I can't think of a mechanism by which an earthquake, even an 8.9 on the Richter Scale, could shift the rotational axis of a gyroscope the size of the earth.

This begs the question, "Did the earthquake cause a shift of the rotational axis of the earth or did a shift in the rotational axis of the earth cause the earthquake?"

If the latter, a much more likely scenario in my humble opinion, is true, then that begs another question.

What caused the rotational axis of the earth to shift?

Keep in mind that the earth bulges out around the equator and also keep in mind that Planet X is thought to be in an orbit which is at a sharp angle to the plane of the ecliptic and also is thought to be approaching from the south of the ecliptic.

Would the approach of such a body, in that position not possibly tug gravitationally at the equatorial bulge in our planet and tend to pull that huge gyroscope off its rotational axis?

Is Tohoku the first important sign of the approach of Planet X? People like Ann Eller and others believe that it is. A lot of these people are nice but not very convincing, science wise.

However, coming from the science community, an explanation like the statement, "The earthquake caused the earth's axis to shift.", is also, not very convincing. To me it makes no sense mechanically.

You could think of the earth as a giant rotating liquid gyroscope. If its rotational axis were to shift by any amount, but for the sake of discussion let's say a minute amount, might this not cause a pertubation of the rotating liquid, resulting in a very, very small ripple or wave on its surface?

If the rotating liquid gyroscope were covered with a very thin crust of solid material, might not this very small ripple or wave cause the crust to crack under stress at some point? Some point like offshore of Fukushima, where a fault in the surface crust might be at just the right spot and in just the right configuration to encounter the ripple or wave and fracture under the stress?

Hard science people have been saying that we should see pertubations in planetary orbits, etc., if any large body were to enter the solar system.

Well, are we now seeing evidence of an interloper, or was the axis shift really caused by an earthquake?

Your thoughts?

Correct, it would take an outside influence to shift the Earth's rotational axis.
The rotational axis of Earth was not shifted, its figure axis was.
content.usatoday.com...
www.npr.org...

reply to post by ipsedixit


please put the pole shift in perspective :

the polar radius of the earth is 6357km , the pole shift is 25cm - do some basic trigonometry

reply to post by Phage

Thanks for the links. Maybe it's just the zeitgeist, but I'm still a little uneasy. A shift in the earth's crust would move the earth's rise and set points as the Inuit have apparently noticed, without an axial shift being necessary.

This business about the "figure" axis raises questions for me.

content.usatoday.com...

"The position of Earth's figure axis also changes all the time, by about 3.3 feet over the course of a year, or about six times more than the change that should have been caused by the Japan quake."

Are they referring to the precessional change in the position of the axis, i.e., "wobble", or are there other changes which occur.

I'm a little suspicious of reassuring information from the mainstream, I'm afraid.

I haven't looked at the NPR link yet. Maybe it is more informative.

reply to post by ignorant_ape

Planet X is supposed by its cheerleaders to be at 9 AU from the sun. I wouldn't expect it to have much effect at that distance, but I'm not really qualified to do the celestial mechanics on it. I wish someone who was would do it, "just for fun".

reply to post by ipsedixit

The Inuit elders may have noticed a change in the apparent location of the sunset but the Earth's rotational axis hasn't shifted. I have a very nice view of Polaris and according to the charts and my view of it over the past fifteen years it's right where it should be. Here's what the movie maker says about it.

Not only have we solved the mystery of why Inuit believe the earth appears to have tilted, but in doing so, we have also discovered that Inuit have techniques for adapting to a changing visual world. When things appear strange, a new technique is required. Fortunately, Inuit are telling us that they have the skills and knowledge to adapt to climate change, and despite the challenges it presents, like any good hunter, they will be prepared.

www.isuma.tv...

You have it right. The change in the figure axis has an effect on precession. A very, very slight effect on a very very slow process. The rate of precession is a moving target but at an average rate of 1º in 72 years it would take a couple of lifetimes (at least) for any consistent change to be grossly apparent. But the changes aren't consistent; a bit in this direction, a bit in that. All caused by various "local" influences.

reply to post by ipsedixit

Planet X is supposed by its cheerleaders to be at 9 AU from the sun. I wouldn't expect it to have much effect at that distance, but I'm not really qualified to do the celestial mechanics on it. I wish someone who was would do it, "just for fun".

Saturn is at about 9.5 AU. It doesn't do much.
Jupiter 5.2. Likewise.

reply to post by Phage

But Saturn is in the ecliptic, is it not?

Planet X is supposed to be well below the ecliptic at about the same distance. Saturn would tend to reinforce the existing rotational axis of earth while Planet X would tend to pull the equator downward.

Video of effects in Norway the same day as the Japan quake. Not sure about the exact time but its explained as standing waves. In Sognefjorden the calm sea suddenly starts "boiling"..
www.vg.no...

From a port webcam at another location in the fjord 07:14 local time:
www.vg.no...

Any other parts in the world this effect occured?

reply to post by ipsedixit

If it's below the ecliptic it must also be above the ecliptic half of the time. With an orbit of 9 AU the orbital period is 27 years. Does it make any sense at all that such an object, if it existed, would not affect the orbits of Saturn or Jupiter and yet somehow cause a shift in Earth's axis which only recently became apparent?

The things is that we know earthquakes shift mass, but not all earthquakes shift the figure axis of the earth. A couple of years ago a large quake in Chile shifted the figure axis also. This is a very large shift in mass I should think. It is difficult (for me a layperson) to imagine any tektonic related earthquake shifting enough mass to cause a change in the figure axis of the planet.

I wonder if quakes that do cause such a shift are all caused by Planet X. How much data do they have on that sort of shift? Surely the data can't go back very far, particularly in the span of the alleged orbital period of Planet X.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

If it's below the ecliptic it must also be above the ecliptic half of the time. With an orbit of 9 AU the orbital period is 27 years.

It is supposed to be in a highly elliptical 3600 year orbit. I guess you are not really current on Planet X stuff. I'll get a link.

Check this out.

reply to post by ipsedixit

Any shift in mass causes a shift in the figure axis. Including, as pointed out, the movement of water in the oceans and the air in the atmosphere. The only variable is the amount of mass and the distance it is shifted.

reply to post by ipsedixit

You said 9 AU.
When is it at 9 AU during its orbit? Now? What is its semi-major axis?

No, I'm not going to watch a half hour video.

reply to post by Phage


Yes, according to the video. It is supposed to be at 9.xx AU from earth south of the ecliptic.

P.S.: If you let the video load, you can use your curser to scroll through it quickly to the celestial diagram. It's in there a couple of times.

reply to post by ipsedixit

Right. And why have no astronomers in the southern hemisphere seen such an object.
Wait, don't tell me...its a brown dwarf and thus invisible.

They don't provide the semi-major axis or perihelion do they?

reply to post by nyloncylon

Thanks for the links to the videos from Norway, and incidentally, you have my sympathy with regard to the recent attack in Oslo.

It is incredible to see the amount of perturbation in the water at such distance from the original quake. This also makes me wonder if what is at work here is a ripple or wave across the surface of the molten core of the earth rather than a seismic wave through the middle. I wonder if similar perturbations were felt elsewhere, at such distance.

reply to post by Phage

I know you don't have time to watch the video, but in it they make reference to the trajectory of Planet X and say that it has migrated into the backround of the milky way and difficult to spot for that reason.

Personally I'm not so much interested in that part of it. I was responding to the references to an earthquake changing the axis of the earth, rotational or figure axis. At least I now know what to look into. Thanks.

reply to post by ipsedixit


marshal masters is a grade 2 wing-nut - thats the polite version

i have watched the vid - and now need a drink

i do however have 2 questions :

1 - what is the emperical evidence for his claim of " 9au distance in sept 2009 " ?

2 - where is it now ? given that he claimed then it is " fast moving " - how fast ?

the bottom line is MM makes it all up - and selectivly quotes others out of context

a total waste of space

I guess the key point from my perspective is that the day seems to have been shortened. If the equator were being pulled from outside (Planet X), I would expect the day to be lengthened.

It's possible that all of these changes are just so minute that the question of what is the ruling factor may still be up in the air.

I'm not really exercised about it one way or the other.