Precession or motion?

[ThorHammaraxx]

Another goal of this thread is to swing the vote either way, and use factual evidence, and science to do that.

Please add your concerns, together we can increase knowledge that supports a solution most likely to occur during Earth precession period.

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!

[swansont]

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.

 

OK, do a calculation and show how this motion would account for the illusion of a wobble.

[ThorHammaraxx]

OK, do a calculation and show how this motion would account for the illusion of a wobble.

 

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.

[swansont]

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.

 

Here's the thing, though: science likes quantified results, because it's one way to show if something is reasonable. The precession is about 1.38º per century, which is 0.024 radians. If a star is 1000 LY away, that translates to a motion of 24 LY, or a speed of 0.24 c. Does that seem reasonable to you? For stars more than ~4000 LY away, they would have to exceed the speed of light.

[ThorHammaraxx]

This entire post was one line of nonsense followed by another. The lunisolar precession is not illusionary. It is quite real, and it is very well explained by physics. Newton was the first to give an explanation for why this well-known precession occurs.

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

Here's the thing, though: science likes quantified results, because it's one way to show if something is reasonable.

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.

The precession is about 1.38º per century, which is 0.024 radians. If a star is 1000 LY away, that translates to a motion of 24 LY, or a speed of 0.24 c. Does that seem reasonable to you? For stars more than ~4000 LY away, they would have to exceed the speed of light.

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.

[swansont]

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.

 

So what if they are not within the galactic arm? All of the observed objects exhibit this general behavior, regardless of distance from us. The limitation on more distant objects demands that the behavior not be due to their linear motion. Once you have that limitation in place, the answer has to be precession, and that applies to all observed objects.

[ThorHammaraxx]

So what if they are not within the galactic arm? All of the observed objects exhibit this general behavior, regardless of distance from us. The limitation on more distant objects demands that the behavior not be due to their linear motion. Once you have that limitation in place, the answer has to be precession, and that applies to all observed objects.

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.

[swansont]

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,

 

Doesn't it also apply to galaxies visible to the naked eye? Or any galaxies, for that matter — does being naked-eye visible change the physics? M87, for example, is >50 MLY away. What limits does that place on how much observed motion is due to actual motion vs precession?

 

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.

 

Moved. Do tell.

[D H]

G'day DH,

I appreciate you challenging my post, but nonsense? really?

Really.

 

The entire Post? Even the paragraph about Hipparchus?

OK. One paragraph is correct. I'll even grant that the paragraph that follows that paragraph about Hipparchus is basically correct:

 

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.

I'll even grant that the last sentence of this paragraph is correct. That is why scientists monitor polar motion.

 

 

Back to the post at hand,

 

The paragraph about the orbital plane of the Moon?

Yep. It's nonsense, and it is wrong.

 

 

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.

I doubt you are open to other people's ideas. My conjecture: You are going to hold on to your cherished theory despite evidence that it is complete and utter nonsense. You have already provided evidence of my conjecture in your rejection of swansont's argument of stars further away than 4000 light years moving at faster than the speed of light. Even though I know you are going to reject what follows, here are more reasons why your conjecture is nonsense.

 

You mentioned the Moon. An Earth-based description of the motion of the Moon, requires including the effects of the Earth's precession and nutation. Failing to do so results in an inaccurate picture. The same goes for other satellites of the Earth, every single one of them. I'll focus on just a couple examples, the LAGEOS satellites and geosynchronous satellites.

 

The LAGEOS satellites are extremely simple. They have no onboard instruments. They are instead simple brass spheres covered with a very shiny surface and a number of retroreflectors. They are easily tracked with ground-based equipment. These satellites exist for one reason only: To gain a better understanding of gravitation. The Earth's precession and nutation are readily observed in the orbits of the LAGEOS satellites.

 

With regard to geosynchronous satellites, organizations that want to have such a satellite operational for a decade or longer need to account for precession in their preflight planning and during operations. Failing to do so results in a premature depletion of the fuel used to maintain the satellite's orbit.

 

Another piece of evidence against your hypothesis are space born telescopes such as the Hubble Space Telescope and the Kepler satellite. These satellites do not see this mysterious motion of yours. The Hubble has to maintain its attitude to within a few milliarcseconds for a short observation, 5 to 20 milliarcseconds for observations that span multiple orbits. This motion of yours would be very observable by Hubble if it existed. It isn't observed because it doesn't exist.

 

The final nail in the coffin of your idea comes from physics. That the Earth is an oblate spheroid rather than spherical has been known since Newton's time. If gravity behaves anything like physicists think it does there will be an external torque on the Earth due to the Earth's oblateness. Theory and observation match quite nicely here. Your concept goes against theory and observation. In a nutshell, your concept is nonsense.

[ThorHammaraxx]

Moved. Do tell.

Ok, thanks, I think you've also changed the subject heading too? so I'll continue.

Doesn't it also apply to galaxies visible to the naked eye? Or any galaxies, for that matter does being naked-eye visible change the physics? M87, for example, is >50 MLY away. What limits does that place on how much observed motion is due to actual motion vs precession?

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.)

Edited March 7, 2012 by ThorHammaraxx

[swansont]

Ok, thanks, I think you've also changed the subject heading too?

 

Yes, it's a new topic, rather than a hijack of another one.

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.

 

Why does this matter? Your argument is not that Hipparchus' model didn't overtly consider and reject your "illusory wobble" conjecture, but that your conjecture is actually right. You have a claim that only considers a small fraction of the evidence that might possibly agree and ignores all the inconvenient evidence that disagrees with it.

 

I imagine that Hipparchus rejected your conjecture out of hand because all of the objects he could observe would have to be moving, grand conspiracy style, to have just the right values so they all moved the same angular amount.

 

BTW, your links don't work. You can't copy-paste the URLs that are displayed in posts. They've been shortened.

 

 

(The Moon's orbital plane later.)

 

No point, really. Your argument has failed already.

[ThorHammaraxx]

No point, really. Your argument has failed already.

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.

[D H]

I must admit being very disappointed in the quality of criticism so far.

That is because you haven't read them. I provided several challenges to your conjecture in my last post. You have yet to address a single one of them.

[ThorHammaraxx]

That is because you haven't read them. I provided several challenges to your conjecture in my last post. You have yet to address a single one of them.

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.

"The Earth's precession and nutation are readily observed in the orbits of the LAGEOS satellites"

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.

"These satellites do not see this mysterious motion of yours."

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

"This huge stellar census will provide the basic observational data to tackle an enormous range of important problems related to the origin, structure and evolutionary history of our Galaxy."

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

[D H]

Never fear DH, I have not forgotten you.

Let me assure you, I read every word.

You have either ignored what I said or hand-waved my arguments away. Example of the hand-waving:

 

Another piece of evidence against your hypothesis are space born telescopes such as the Hubble Space Telescope and the Kepler satellite. These satellites do not see this mysterious motion of yours.

Yes they do, it's just not interpreted that way, that is all.

 

No, they don't see it. These satellites maintain a very precise inertial attitude for long periods of time. Your nonsense conjecture corresponds to an angular velocity 136 milliarcseconds per day. Some Hubble long duration exposures require the Hubble to point to the same spot for days, to within 5 to 20 milliarcseconds. This nonsense motion of yours would be very apparent in these long duration exposures. That motion is not observed for one simple reason: It doesn't exist.

 

 

I am preparing a presentation about why the Moon's orbital plane is worth examining.

Don't bother. Your idea is nonsense.

 

 

The Gaia satellite due to launch next year will be looking for it.

No, it won't. Why look for something that is known not to exist?

 

 

If you have not done so already, please take a look at Robert Grand's results from the links in my last post.

This has absolutely nothing to do with your conjecture. This is very interesting -- assuming Grand's work stands up to scrutiny. Grand is arguing against (strongly against!) the 50 year old spiral density wave model of the spiral arms.

 

The spiral density wave model says that the spiral arms are akin to the standing wave traffic jams one occasionally encounters on highways. Suppose someone driving to work at 6 AM taps on the brakes to get the tailgater behind her to back off a bit. The tailgater will have to hit his brakes hard to avoid a rear-end collision, and the tailgater right behind him will have to slam her brakes. Suddenly traffic comes to a near halt. This traffic jam that was originally caused by a little tap on the brakes can last all day long if traffic remains heavy. Cars will slow down when they hit this standing wave traffic jam but will eventually drive beyond the jam and be able to speed up again. Per the spiral density wave model, the spiral arms are galactic scale traffic jams. Stars slow down a bit as the hit the arm but eventually pass through the arm.

 

Grand et al are arguing that the arms are something very different. Per their paper, the spiral arms are not standing waves but are instead short-lived (ten million to a hundred million years) concentrations of stars that more or less move with the stars as they orbit the galaxy. Attempts to overturn a fifty year old idea will encounter some scrutiny. I'm curious to see what transpires. So, very interesting, but not supportive of your conjecture at all.

[swansont]

I must admit being very disappointed in the quality of criticism so far.

 

Your vague opinion of the quality is not an acceptable reason to avoid addressing it. (And such avoidance runs afoul of rule 8.)

 

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:

 

Not that I can see. It's up to you to make the connection.