ThorHammaraxx

Never fear DH, I have not forgotten you.Let me assure you, I read every word. I am preparing a presentation about why the Moon's orbital plane is worth examining. There is a specific characteristic about the Sunrises and Full Moonrises that can be observed year after year. This characteristic is not an invention of mine, but perhaps you are unaware of it, which in that case, it will be my pleasure to show you just how interesting it is. Please feel free to investigate the Moons orbital plane in relation to the Earth's orbital plane in advance. You would get the same results taking observations and my theory into account too.Nothing either physical nor observational is changed in this model, only the explanations. Yes they do, it's just not interpreted that way, that is all. You and I see the sun and the Moon cross the sky the same as our ancestors did thousands of years ago, we just explain it differently. The Gaia satellite due to launch next year will be looking for it. Gaia satellite Link: www.esa.int/export/esaSC/120377_index_0_m.html Gaia satellite Link: sci.esa.int/science-e/www/area/index.cfm?fareaid=26 If you have not done so already, please take a look at Robert Grand's results from the links in my last post. Thanks again. t

I must admit being very disappointed in the quality of criticism so far. I've only just had the following brought to my attention, today in fact. I wish I had known of this before I began posting here, I suggest that it supports my claim somewhat: From Cornell University Library: "The dynamics of stars around spiral arms" Robert J. J. Grand, Daisuke Kawata, Mark Cropper (MSSL, UCL) - 30 Nov 2011 http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.0019 From Royal Astronomical Society (20 April 2011) "NAM 21: New theory of evolution for spiral galaxy arms" http://www.ras.org.u...ral-galaxy-arms How's that? PS: Sorry about the links not working in the last post, here they are again (tested). 1. http://en.wikipedia....Brightest_stars 2. Hipparchus' full star catalogue: Sorry I'm on a different computer, I tried to search for it again but no luck 3. 1880's M87 data: http://www.ngcicproj...4-4512_grey.jpg (from homepage: http://www.ngcicproject.org 4. 2006 data http://www.ngcicproj.../ngcnotes_4.txt I think you'll actually like the Moon part coming soon. Take care.

Ok, thanks, I think you've also changed the subject heading too? so I'll continue. That's my fault I didn't answer too well, I should be focusing on one thing at a time.I'll talk about the Moon later. It really is the second key to all of this, but first: Put it this way. Under a flat earth model you could calculate the time it took for the 'chariot' to carry the Sun across the sky and how long it took the 'worm' to take it back to its starting point overnight. Between that and Ptolemy's model nothing changed physically or observationally, what changed was the science. Once science moved on to the heliocentric view it decided the Earth was no longer the centre of the universe but the Sun was. Once again, neither the physical movements nor the observations changed, only the science. We have since moved on from that and discovered that not all stars follow the precession, constellations slowly change shape and stars have independent movements. Today most people imagine the 226 million years rotation of the galaxy as if a snapshot image of the galaxy was rotated. That is how all video representations of a rotating galaxy are shown. I've not seen one created any differently. I've read lines like "The sun travels in a near circular path around the Milky way taking between 200 and 250 million years to complete an orbit." Our current day science recognises that our solar system dips below and then above the galactic plane many times during that "near perfect orbit". Every representation of that that I've seen to date, show that like Earth travelling along a sine wave above and below the plane but with no explanation as to why. What's not been considered so far, are the rotating arms of the galaxy which explains how that would happen very nicely, and all observations both of close stars and distant galaxies and their apparent movements remain the same: Over 1700 years prior to the telescope, Hipparchus' "Precession of the stars" was based on the stars visible with the naked eye (a wiki list of brightest stars http://en.wikipedia....brightest_stars) as you know most of them are pretty close to us. The two stars I find typically listed in relation to Hipparchus' study and conclusion of the precession are Spica, at 260 light years and Regulus about 77.5 light years away. (Full catalogue on wiki http://en.wikipedia....arcos_Catalogue). The wobbling Earth model can not explain some of the strange observed behaviour of distant star motions we've seen through telescope exploration. A rotating galactic arm does, perhaps not all of them, it's good to have some mystery still. Observing the M87 (which I'm happy you selected by the way, wasn't it only recently that black holes were accepted thanks to this giant?) requires a telescope. Can you be certain that M87 has remained in the same place between Epsilon Virginis, 102 light years from Earth and Denebola at 36 light years from Earth since first catalogued by Messier in the late 1700's? The NGC/IC Society appear to think so, as they consider all of the old data in error, much of it probably is, and have a project going to 'correct' and modernise it. For M87 (NGC 4486) The J.L.E. Dreyer catalogue from 1888: http://www.ngcicproj...4-4512_grey.jpg Compared to findings from August 2006: http://www.ngcicproj...06/ngcpos_4.txt Meanwhile Barnard's Star at almost 6 light years from Earth has acted like a Ferrari across the sky in comparison to the distant stars surrounding it. Please, I'd like to give you a little background. For the exact reasons, I've simply forgotten, it was over a decade ago, something had me questioning the validity of the wobbling Earth theory. Things like that bug me like an affliction when I don't know so I wanted an answer, a model, that would explain how the observations (the theory of 'The precession of the stars') could be explained with the tilt of the Earth's axis remaining close to where it is today and not 'wobbling' (apart from the occasional mechanical shifts from Earthquakes, volcanoes, collision). I didn't find an answer elswhere, nor did I find a conclusive explanation for a physical wobble either. I did not expect or plan to be the author of my answer. If we break it, fine, either way I'll still end up with an answer that satisfies my curiosity and that's all I care about really, doesn't science too? Thanks again. (The Moon's orbital plane later.)

The 'precession of the stars' was based on the movements of the stars visible with the naked eye. The idea was accepted that the tilt of the Earth's axis moved about being what caused it. Then, as our telescopes got stronger and we began looking at distant stars and other galaxies it was automatically accepted in a rather heliocentric way, that all of that too should follow the described path of the precession. Then we discover amazing behaviour of some of them, amazing speeds and trajectories. I can answer that and will but for now, I must apologise, being new here, I've only just realise my posts in this thread could be seen as using a science thread to promote my own theory. So, I think it might be best to withdraw for now but I'm not running and hiding. I will post a thread of my own very soon and out of respect for the forum will post it under Speculations. Hope to see you there.

G'day DH, I appreciate you challenging my post, but nonsense? really? The entire Post? Even the paragraph about Hipparchus? The paragraph about the orbital plane of the Moon? If you did not make sense of it do you not have questions for me instead of just dismissing it without investigation? There is a quote that I like and I'd like to share it. "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon.... This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy"~ Martin Luther (1539) concerning Copernicus theory prior to the publishing of "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" in 1543. Looks like Martin Luther thought that Ptolemy's geocentric model was "quite real and well explained by physics" too and didn't need to listen to Copernicus. Later, Newton created an ingenious formula to explain why the Earth might wobble, because that was the model at the time, Heliocentric. It wasn't until the 1920s that we accepted Edwin Hubble's findings that the Sun was a part of a galaxy and also moving. It's been 90 years since then and we have a much better understanding of galaxies than we've had before. I've introduced another rotation which I'm sure you had not previously considered, that of the rotation of the galactic arms. When you take that into consideration, the views of the stars from earth will create a precession without the tilt of the Earth having to physically wobble. Please, go ahead, imagine it, I know you'll see it, if you 'look'. I'd love to hear why you think the model of the rotating galactic arms is nonsense or why it can't be so, please don't simply answer, "nonsense!" or "because they don't!", you must explain why. I am open to your ideas. Thanks again. "If we all worked on the assumptions that what is accepted as true were really true, there would be little hope of advance" ~ Orville Wright Yes, and I intend to do just that, show that this is reasonable. Give me time. It took a few hundred for years for our 'agreed scientific' understanding to go from the Heliocentric model to our current model, yet the precession theory involving a "wobbling" Earths axial tilt is still basically Heliocentric. I'm sorry I don't see how that fits with what I offered and no what you suggest does not sound reasonable. Stars more than ~4000 LY away could be outside of our galactic arm (@ < 3000 LY across). Depending what star, it could 'appear' to me moving in a direction that it actually isn't. Under our currently accepted model, some of the stars & galaxies out there seem to be moving in unexplained directions and speeds creating more questions. Other than introducing strange behaviour like you suggested (stars travelling faster than light) the model I presented actually explains some of the currently mysterious actions going on out there.

Yes, that's something I did have a go at though I'm not entirely happy with them, still. I'm a Musician primarily but not a great mathematician unfortunately. Perhaps someone with real skills may help me here. Basically, you don't need calculations to understand the principals of the Earth orbiting the Sun and the resulting seasons experienced. You saw the model, either drawn or a physical representation of it and you understood it. Same goes with the orbit of the Moon around the Earth creating the different views that it does. I'm simply presenting a model of the galactic arm and all the stars in it rotating around a central axis, probably more like a whirlpool than a tornado. Eventually taking what ever is left of the solar system by then into the centre of the galaxy. If that is the case then the model can hold that as our sun rotates around the galactic arm, with all the other stars, the tilt of the Earths axis can remain close to as it is today and we will observe a precession. I created this image on the wiki that might help you see the model: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hammar_Axis_cylinder_galactic_arm.jpg Now, it appears that our Sun is about 1,400 light years from centre of the galactic arm, lets pick that as the centre of the axis. It's assumed that it takes somewhere up to 26,000 to complete the precession so I'd say that's roughly how fast the arm is rotating/twisting, where we are at least.

G'day superball, I'm the new one here this time. This has been one of my favourite topics for well over a decade now and I have much to share about this once my regulatory number of posts has been met. A little different, my vote is for torque free 'illusionary' wobble of the tilt of the Earths axis. Apparently somewhere between 146–130 BC, Hipparchus started the investigation into all of this after he examined the changed positions of several bright stars previously recorded by Timocharis and Aristillus over a century before. He concluded the stars were moving in a grand precession. Much later, as you know, after the fighting died down and it was agreed that the Earth orbits the Sun, it was then agreed that the tilt of the Earths axis must wobble in order for the Precession of the stars to occur. A little later, Newton came up with gravitational torque to explain the wobble. It's been worked on and still not perfected ever since. According to the actions of Foucault's Pendulum, and Newton's first law of motion, and further consideration of the movements of the galactic arms, there is no real reason for the tilt of the axis to wobble at all. It will move from time to time from volcanoes or earthquakes or worse, a collision with something. The occasional shift of the axis is one reason why it's close to impossible to accurately measure the precession. There is no real reason for wobbling in order for a precession of the stars to be observed in fact the 'wobble' is just an illusion. The theories that we still use today were created before our modern understanding of the galaxy. The stars we see with the naked eye including all of the constellations most noted in the precession are generally only a few hundred light years away and live in the same arm of the galaxy as we do. The area of the 'Orion' arm that we live in is over 3,000 light years across. Can you picture each arm of the galaxy twisting like a tornado taking perhaps near 26,000 years for us to go all the way around (travelling above and below the galactic plane) and how our view of the stars would change without the axis having to wobble? I can and I'm sure Newton would have too and not have agreed with the idea of a wobbling axis, he would have stuck with his first law. Here's another thing to consider. The Moon. Investigate its pattern, how it orbits the Earth following a specific orbital plane that causes the changing position on the horizon of the Full Moon to perform a specific dance with the position of Sunrise throughout the year, every year and has done so for as far back as recorded. None of the wobbling Earth's axis theories, torque or no torque can explain how the orbital plane of the Moon would also be adjusted which would be necessary to fit the current model. Somehow this part is left out. Rock on!

Yes you are! You're a 13 year old in 8th grade scientist. Good on you. It's a fantastic idea. You could take it even further: If you can digitise consciousness and put it in a machine, why not send it wirelessly from one machine to another? You could 'beam' it from one planet or moon to another and then into a suitable machine for that environment. If you could turn it off and back on and then feel like only a second was missing, there's your pseudo time travel (forward at least). Imagine sending your machine to another galaxy and "waking up" when you get there. Wow! Bring it on! If you would like to read more about what some other scientists have been 'working' on, I found a page on the wiki, "Mind Uploading" that you might find interesting: http://en.wikipedia..../Mind_uploading Who know, perhaps we've been waiting for you to invent it. good luck.

Quite a bit of work there, although still just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to conflict. Not all conflict has to be a dominator/controller vs dominated / controlled. Yes it is possible to create win / win scenarios to just about all conflicts. I would offer a third type of conflict: "Educational conflict" Conflicts according to the rules, where the available information is the arbiter, where victory is awarded to both parties. The loosing idea is replaced by the winning idea. The so called "looser" who's idea was defeated actually wins "New information". The so called "victor's" idea is further validated with the extra support. Such conflicts finished with only winners and no losers. There are rules for this type of conflict and that is the recognition that it is the idea in conflict not the humans. Second, anything that is mysterious or can not be 'known' (at least with current technology or knowledge) should be agreed to be allowed to remain a mystery and is pointless conflicting ideas over. Absolutely pointless. Lets give those ideas a value of 0 (Zero). Ideas that have supported facts or at minimum strong theories can and should always be demonstrated in conflict. To these ideas we'll give a value of 1 (Boolean for "true"). Ideas that are a guess, learned from others without experience or experiment, or created for the sake of conflict will always be 'beaten' by an idea with a value of 1, so for these 'false' ideas, we'll give a value of 2. 2 being the first 'false' number as it is actually two 1's. 1's are the King of ideas and will trump a 0 or a 2. Two 2's can 'battle' it out until, with enough support, one of those 2's becomes a 1, both of them can't. The trick comes with 2's vs 0's. Often the person with the 2 thinks they have a 1 but in reality there may also be a chance the person with a 0 is right. 2 X 0 = 0 The later usually regards subjective ideas and rarely something that can be proven, otherwise a 1 would be in the scenario, so it must be agreed to draw. If any conflict heads towards the physical, then you really have a moral/behavioural, possibly mental issue. That's another realm. Conflict is good, it's natural, it leads to growth, it doesn't always have to include violence or domination. And, that's OS012 in a nutshell. "Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still." ~ Dale Carnegie

To me, and it's just my opinion, the only reason many think we need to reduce the population is due to the mis management by the governments of the world. If we used and distributed our resources wisely, we could not only extend life but have a healthier planet and room for many, many more. Look at what the governments of the world waste too much of our resources doing. So the way it is hints that the governments of the world prefer a much younger 'working' population, dying before they get old and they may even have the assistance of the medical community to help achieve that. So I'd say "No, they wouldn't."

Sounds like you'll be fine. When you do what you love and you love what you do you tend to excel any way. Your understanding of Java reveals that your maths is probably much better than you think. Identifying variable types, using operators and loops etc. think about it for a sec... You've pretty much been using and creating complex algebra within your code already with 'real world' application. It's easy not to recognise maths when it doesn't feel like you're filling out an exam paper. The truth is our lives are full of it. All the best to you.

I'd agree with "Nuclear Age". We are passed the 'Nuclear adoption' stage and are now into the "Nuclear threshold". (where with Nuclear technology, we will either end or improve humanity.) It's also said that we're in the tail end of the "Age of Pisces" and about to move into the "Age of Aquarius"

G'day, Australian Musician, computer programmer, author, science nut etc. Just joined today. I think I have some great stuff to contribute. I guess it's a "wait and see" for now. cheers