Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby JoeTB » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:00 pm

This paper seems to be obviously correct in its main point, in my opinion, and I would like to hear what all you geniouses have to say about it: http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/bri/research/papers/ComparisonPaper.pdf

I encourage you to read the paper, it is quite an easy read.

Here are some main points:
There are two basic theories to explain the Earth’s changing orientation to inertial space,
a phenomenon known as “Precession of the Equinox” or often-just “Precession”. The
“Lunisolar” explanation is widely accepted while the “Binary” or “Oriental” explanation,
although quite old, is hardly known. However, recent scientific evidence, as well as new
mathematical models and an expanding knowledge of binary systems call into question
the long accepted lunisolar theory and lends surprising support to the binary view.


Historical Perspective: Not only were Copernicus and Newton unaware of binary
prevalence, they also assumed a “static Sun” when they first postulated a heliocentric
system with a wobbling Earth. They had no knowledge of invisible stars like black holes
or brown dwarfs, and they were unaware that our Sun is moving at great speed through
local space or that it could possibly be gravitationally bound to any other extra-solar
system mass (this is obviously before knowledge of any galaxies or galactic motion).
Consequently, it is not expected that they would consider anything outside the solar
system as a causative factor in producing a solar system (or Earth from our point of
view) that displays an apparent wobble relative to the fixed stars.


In the lunisolar wobble model the Earth changes orientation to inertial space by 50 arc
seconds due to local forces and therefore must also change orientation relative to the Sun
by this same amount each year. But in the binary model the change in orientation is due
to motion of the entire solar system and therefore the Earth does not change orientation
relative to the Sun equinox to equinox. Therefore, in the binary model the period of time
from equinox to equinox represents a 360-degree motion of the Earth around the Sun not
360 degrees less 50 arc seconds as in the lunisolar model. It is clear the binary model
involves another reference frame that has heretofore not been recognized; a solar system
that moves relative to inertial space.


If the Earth itself were coming up about 50 arc seconds short of the equinoctial point that
it was at the prior year, then lunar equations would show the Earth goes around the Sun
50 arc seconds short of 360 degrees in an equinoctial year. But the equations do not show
this. They show that the Earth goes around the Sun, relative to the Sun, 360 degrees in an
equinoctial year. Yet anyone can see that the Earth in relation to inertial space appears to
move around the Sun 360 degrees only in a sidereal year. Indeed, fixed-star to fixed-star
has almost become the litmus test for what is or isn’t a 360 degree movement. But like
Ptolemy’s Sun, that appears to orbit round the Earth, motions in space can be deceiving.


Lunar rotation equations clearly show the Earth goes around the Sun 360 degrees in an
equinoctial year, and contrary to observations of the Earth’s orientation relative to inertial
space, these same equations show the Earth orbits the Sun 360 degrees plus 50 arc
seconds in a sidereal year. Interestingly, if one only plugs the sidereal data into the
rotation equations, they show the Earth moves 360 degrees relative to the fixed stars in a
sidereal year, yet this orbit path of the Earth around the Sun takes 20 minutes longer and
is 22,000 miles wider in circumference than the Earth’s actual path around the Sun. Now
obviously, the Earth does not have two different orbit paths around the Sun each year. So
which is right? Mathematically, they are both correct; the Earth does move 360 degrees
around the Sun in a solar year and does appear to move 360 degrees relative to the fixed
stars in a longer sidereal year. The startling conclusion is, while the Earth is moving 360
degrees counterclockwise around the Sun in a solar year, the entire solar system
(containing the Earth Sun reference frame) is moving clockwise relative to inertial space.
The relationship between the mathematical calculations supports no other conclusion.


Further evidence that precession is not due to local wobbling can be found in studying
eclipse data and planetary occultations. If precession, is a result of local wobbling (which
must cause the axis to slip by 50 arc seconds per year along the ecliptic as well as relative
to the fixed stars) then anything outside the Earth would have to reflect this precession.
But this is not the case. While we do use a sidereal frame (that incorporates precession) to
find the new position of the fixed stars each year, we do not use this frame to find out
where planetary conjunctions will occur. Moreover, the Earth’s wobble is not taken into
account when trying to pinpoint the timing or umbra location of an eclipse. This topic is a
bit difficult to understand for anyone that does not fully comprehend the implied
theoretical aspects of lunisolar precession mechanics. The point is that while precession
theory works in determining orientation to points outside the solar system it does not
work and is not applied to locating fixed points within the solar system. One example of
the is the Perseid meteor shower:

Perseids Meteor Shower shows that the Earth goes around the Sun 360 degrees in a
tropical year.

There are certain meteor showers that can be seen regularly on the same date each year.
They are thought to be the result of the Earth, moving along its orbital path around the
Sun, crossing through that point in space where a comet once intersected our orbit path.
The leftover debris hitting our atmosphere is the cause of these annual meteor showers
that come and go like clockwork. One of the strongest and most well known is the
Perseid Meteor which peaks each year every August 11th and 12th (my birthday). Ever
since I can remember this meteor shower has occurred on my birthday.

The Perseid was first mentioned by the Chinese in 36 AD and is mentioned again in
Japanese, Korean and Chinese chronicles through the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th centuries
according Gary Kronks in his journal on meteors and comets. Sometime around the mid
1500’s, after the St. Lawrence feast day had been established as August 10th, people
began to call this meteor shower the “Tears of Saint Lawrence”, because right after the
feast day the meteor shower would peak for a day or two. Still today the peak of this
meteor shower is August 11th and 12th.

As long as the Earth goes around the Sun 360 degrees equinox to equinox, and we keep
our current system of leap corrections* we should continue to see this meteor shower
peak every August 11th and 12th for centuries to come. This is because our current
calendar system of time loses less than 1 day every 3200 years relative to the actual
motion of the equinox within the calendar. In other words the equinox remains fixed
within the calendar moving only slightly for differences between the calendar days (365)
and the Earth’s actual rotations in a tropical year (365.2422) and always quickly adjusted
by leap days every four years.

BUT WAIT, lunisolar precession theory says the Earth does not go around the Sun 360
degrees every equinox. It says it comes up 50 arc seconds short of 360 degrees every
tropical year and this is why we see the fixed stars precess by 50 arc seconds per average
tropical year. But if the Earth does not go around the sun 360 degrees then the Perseid
meteor shower should reflect precession and slip through the calendar 1 day in every 72
years, meaning it should have moved almost six days exactly since the Gregorian
Calendar Reform in 1582. We know the fixed stars “outside the solar system” have
indeed appeared to move by this much in that time period due to precession but why
hasn’t the Perseid reference point “within the solar system” changed by this same amount
of precession? If precession is caused by local sources wobbling the Earth then anything
and everything outside the Earth should appear to move at the same rate, excluding
proper motion.

Answer: The Earth does not change orientation to the Perseid meteor shower, or to the
Moon, or to eclipses, or to any points of planetary occultations or to anything within the
solar system, because local wobbling of the Earth does not cause precession. What we
call precession only occurs relative to the fixed stars and objects “outside the solar
system” because precession is actually due to the motion of the solar system itself. The
solar system containing the Earth moves as a single reference frame at the rate of about
50 arc seconds annually relative to inertial space. All bodies within that reference frame
maintain their relative gravitational relationships, the Earth does not experience
precession within that frame, and therefore only the tropical frame applies. All bodies
outside that reference frame must be adjusted for precession and the sidereal frame
applies.


The lunar equations and the lack of observable precession relative to the Moon, eclipse
junctions, comet debris and other points within the solar system, in all likelihood
disprove lunisolar theory, but they do not in themselves prove we are in a binary system.
However, there are several additional significant arguments based on anomalies in other
solar system theories that appear to give weight to the binary model. Below is a brief list
of known solar system anomalies:
JoeTB
Guest
 

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby moses » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:43 am

JoeTB wrote:This paper seems to be obviously correct in its main point, in my opinion, and I would like to hear what all you geniouses have to say about it: http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/bri/research/papers/ComparisonPaper.pdf
I encourage you to read the paper, it is quite an easy read.

I thank you Joe for this. It is clearly obvious that the Sun has a curved
trajectory, which is not due to the Galactic centre. The proposed
binary of mass 8% of that of the Sun at 1000 AU looks good, especially
given the view of Sri Yukteswar. This would be no problem for EU.

However, EU looks for electrical solutions to problems. And, the Sun, being
a charged body, could easily be influenced by an electric field. Thus the
curved trajectory of the Sun could be due to another charged body, or a
Birkeland current, or a plasma cloud or maybe other electrical reasons.

If there is a binary in the range of 1000 AU I'm sure that it will be found soon.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby moses » Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:46 am

If the curving of the trajectory of the Sun is caused by electrical effects,
then a change in these electrical conditions could not only alter the
trajectory or the Sun, but also could produce a pole shift of Earth. So if
the Solar System moved into a double layer then this would produce big
electrical differences, exponentially increasing, resulting in a deflection
of the Sun and an Earth pole shift !

Considering the Cayce prediction of a pole shift, the possibly measured
increase in radiation coming from the Solar System double layer, and
the various changes in the planets, especially the outer planets, then
this explanation might be the key. One should also watch for changes
in our clocks, now, too.

Exciting.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby davesmith_au » Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:55 am

Maybe I'm thick, but I don't see anything obvious about it.

IF there's indication of a binary companion, at say, 1000AU for example, there should also be an EXACT location posited for it, in which case I'm sure we'd be able to turn our huge telescopes in "that" direction and 'see' the binary, if it were there? Or is that asking a bit much...

Cheers, Dave Smith.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby earls » Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:15 am

While I agree with you Dave, one would first have to assume that it had a companion to begin looking for it. To my present knowledge, it is assumed that the sun is solitaire.

Akin to your tagline: "Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it"

This jives well with another post I recall about the "helical movement" of the sun.

I'd be curious to know if the size and luminosity of solar object could be tied to the number of time a Birkeland current has merged both with itself and others, and/or its current status of doing so. Take that peanut shaped solar system posted in the "EU Forum." One day (or already has) those stars will merge into a larger star (creating a nova), at that point, will it then take on another companion in a distant region of its local?

The thing that frustrates me the most about this "science" is I can see clearly in my head the phenomenon, but have no method to communicate it.
earls
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:48 am

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby JoeTB » Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:17 am

moses wrote:
JoeTB wrote:This paper seems to be obviously correct in its main point, in my opinion, and I would like to hear what all you geniouses have to say about it: http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/bri/research/papers/ComparisonPaper.pdf
I encourage you to read the paper, it is quite an easy read.

However, EU looks for electrical solutions to problems.


I would expect the EU to find its electrical solution in the same way it finds a solution for gravity not being able to explain the movements of our galaxy - namely, we don't necessarily need to look so close for an (as yet) invisible object. Someone wise once said that laws must follow observations, not the other way around.

Check the movements of stars that we do know about, perhaps one of the stars that the ancients focused on; if we passed apoapsis 1500-2000 years ago, maybe one that is supposed to be red.
JoeTB
Guest
 

Earth's Axis

Unread postby moses » Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:57 pm

This is following on from http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... f=10&t=226

We had discussions about the Landscheidt cycles previously on this ( the old ) forum.
Basically, this says that the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn, primarily, cause the Sun to
wobble, and this wobble can be well correlated with sunspots. Now there is a
correlation between sunspots and the wobble of the Earth ( along with a whole heap
of other correlations of sunspots with Earth and human factors. ) See:
http://www.michaelmandeville.com/earthc ... _1890-2006
Correlation of Annual Average Sunspot Activity (ISSN)
With Earth's Wobble On Both The X & Y Axis 1890-2006 - Giant

But we now see that a curve in the trajectory of the Sun has an effect on the Earth's
axis. ( From the pdf in the cited preceding post. ) So, putting these two things together,
we see that Jupiter and Saturn produce a curve in the Sun's trajectory which is shown to
affect the Earth's wobble. There has been a drift in the Earth's axis over the last hundred
years, or so. This may be due to overall change in the Sun's trajectory. The big increase
in earthquakes of recent times can be ascribed to the change in the Earth's wobble. And
maybe even the 1 degree rise, or so, in the Earth's temperature over the last hundred
years, is due to this wobble change.

Thus anything which changes the Sun's trajectory effects Earth significantly. If there is
a binary companion to the Sun causing this, then this is no big deal. However, if we are
entering a double layer and an exponentially increasing effect, then watch out !

Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Earth's axis

Unread postby JoeTB » Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:21 pm

The point of the preceding was actually not that the path of the sun caused the 'wobble' of the earth. The point of it was that the notion of the Earth 'wobbling' was conceived when the sun was thought to be stationary, and that gravity could explain away everything - when in fact what the observations tell us is that the entire solar system is curving through space, probably in mutual orbit with another star(s)... and those stars probably would be stars that the 'laws of gravity' could not explain. IE - too far away.
JoeTB
Guest
 

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby seasmith » Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:16 pm

guess this could fit in here:

OP by Jim Weninger


Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 2

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: The helical path of the sun through space

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have found evidence supporting a helical path for the sun, which is compatible with the idea of the sun being charged and moving through a background magnetic field. Has anyone else found this as well?
The general idea is this:
1. The earth's spin axis tends to align with our helical direction of travel,and this is the cause of earth's ~26,000 year precessional cycle.
2. The 41,000 year obliquity cycle is caused by changes in magnetic field strentgh.
3. Vega is traveling ahead of us, with it's spin axis aligned with it's direction of travel. This is why we see Vega only ~5 degrees off it's spin axis now.
4. Sirius is charged similarly to the sun,and therefore spirals helically in the same direction around nearly the same axis. This is why Sirius does not seem to precess like other stars.
These are just the general ideas; I am ready to be questioned on details if anyone is interested. I would also be interested in hearing from anyone with similar ideas.
Jim Weninger

Back to top


Krackonis



Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 539
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:36 pm Post subject: Re: The helical path of the sun through space

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jim weninger wrote:
I have found evidence supporting a helical path for the sun, which is compatible with the idea of the sun being charged and moving through a background magnetic field. Has anyone else found this as well?
The general idea is this:
1. The earth's spin axis tends to align with our helical direction of travel,and this is the cause of earth's ~26,000 year precessional cycle.
2. The 41,000 year obliquity cycle is caused by changes in magnetic field strentgh.
3. Vega is traveling ahead of us, with it's spin axis aligned with it's direction of travel. This is why we see Vega only ~5 degrees off it's spin axis now.
4. Sirius is charged similarly to the sun,and therefore spirals helically in the same direction around nearly the same axis. This is why Sirius does not seem to precess like other stars.
These are just the general ideas; I am ready to be questioned on details if anyone is interested. I would also be interested in hearing from anyone with similar ideas.
Jim Weninger


These are brilliant ideas. The precessional discrepencies have been bothering me for a time, and in one fell swoop, you managed to solve my conundrum.

My problem was thus:

The precessional cycle has been noted for perhaps 10,000 years. It's debateable if certain examples were understood as precession, but definately, during the last 4500 years, the "Age of the Bull" Taurus, because the Age of Pieces, and then the new age of Aquarius starts in 2150 or so, indicate an understanding that the earth moves backwards thru the zodiac symbols. These symbols became hammered in after the fall of the gods.

As astrology was one of the first 'divination' methods to determine the will of the gods, it's universal usefulness was definately noted after the catasrophic flood and such events.

Now, instead of relying on 'Nibiru' or other such constructions, the simple twisting magnetic field of the EU answers the question.

Precession is a stable stellar event and the planet does not wobble, and never has.
_________________
Neil Thompson

Krackonis

"We are the universe, trying to understand itself."
- Delenn

Back to top


jim weninger



Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 2

Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to propose a model of the sun's path based on electric and magnetic forces. The model itself is simple. If it seems hard to believe,bear with me and I will show how this model allows us to make a number of predictions that do in fact match observations.

The model: The stars in the Pleiades share a similar charge. The sun is charged oppositely to the stars in the Pleiades. The electrical attraction between the sun and the Pleiades held the sun in a long period (~26 million year) nearly circular orbit about the Pleiades. Vega and Sirius, similarly charged to the sun, shared a similar nearly circular orbit about the Pleiades. The sun's orbit around the Pleiades carries us into a local magnetic field. (we will have more on this magnetic source in a future post) The charged sun now begins to move helically in this magnetic field. The earth's spin axis tends to line up with the solar system's direction of travel;This is the cause of earth's precession. The solar system is in fact moving in a ~24,000 year helical spiral.

Predictions:
1. The like charges on stars in the Pleiades should cause them to disperse.
2. If Sirius is charged like the sun,and following the sun,it should begin to spiral helically in the same direction. Therefore,if precession is really caused by the helical motion of the solar system, Sirius should not precess like other stars,and instead stay more or less in sync with us.
3. If Vega is traveling ahead of us into an increasing magnetic field,we may expect to find it's magnetic axis(and over time spin axis)to align with it's direction of travel,and we should see it pole on.
4. As Vega,then sun,then Sirius move into the magnetic field,they move more and more helically, and less in their original direction of travel around the Pleiades. The magnetic field does not add kinetic energy to these stars,only changes their direction. Vega ,the sun and Sirius should bunch up in their direction of travel (meaning we should observe negative radial velocities for Vega ahead of us,and Sirius behind us).
5. If, as current theory suggests,the spin of a star or planet generates a magnetic field,could the presence of an external magnetic field affect a stars spin? Look at the rotation of Vega.Should we expect changes in earth's rotation rate that are not explicable by gravity and momentum alone?
6. If the sun was in a nearly circular ~26 million year orbit around the Pleiades, the average star in the Pleiades should appear to be moving at a rate of 360 degrees/26 million years.
7. Most importantly. If the sun was moving originally in a circular orbit around the Pleiades, at any time we were heading 90 degrees away from the Pleiades. The introduction of a magnetic field would cause us to move helically about this axis. Therefore, if precession is really due to the helical motion of our solar system, we should observe the earth's pole to move in a circular pattern about a point ~90 degrees away from the Pleiades. That is, the central point in Draco about which our pole moves in one precessional cycle should be 90 degrees away from the Pleiades.

I will leave it to the reader to verify any of these predictions.
Jim
seasmith
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby moses » Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:51 pm

If Sirius is the only star that doesn't precess, then perhaps this is due to
Sirius being in the same plasma cell as the Sun. This plasma cell would
have a small electrical potential drop across it, this producing a force
acting on both the Sun and Sirius. This force would send the Sun and
Sirius in a helical trajectory. Pure speculation, of course.

But, if true, then we look ahead to where the Sun is travelling, and we
would expect to find a star that has a similar trajectory. Now, if this is
not the case, then maybe we are near the edge of this plasma cell. I'll be
looking into all this, but just proposing this theory for now, in case anyone
else wants to look into it. Of course, the thing is that the edge of this
plasma cell would be a double layer with a very large change in electrical
potential, producing a pole shift, amongst other things.

Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Simple question

Unread postby JoeTB » Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:50 pm

I guess it's a good sign that this was moved out of the 'mad ideas' section.

I've done some more researching on this, and I've noticed that (as is completely typical) as soon as someone brings up this question, the conversation quickly devolves into straw-man arguments and assumptions, such as:
Well, because 'gravity' only works from such and such distance, it couldn't be any of the observable stars, therefore it would have to be some kind of local 'black hole' or 'super dark spinning vortex ' that is invisible, so we can't see it. We should start looking for this vortex to see if there is any possibility for this.
Well if this were true, we would know it by now....

Typical rubbish.

The question is this: Does the Earth precess relative to only the stars, or also to the rest of the solar system?

I've seen arguments both ways, and I get confused myself. But the answer is one or the other. Forget strawmen and circular arguments. Can the informed among you answer this basic question? TO ME.. the BS arguments are coming from the 'wobble' side, which is usually a clue, and it seems as if we are not precessing relative to the Solar system. Perihelion hovers around January 4-2, and Aphelion is around July 4-2. Should this not have moved a week one way or the other since the calender reforms? When I am analyzing the movements of the planets over long periods, shouldn't the date have to be adjusted periodically to account for 'wobble' difference?

This one answer gives us the ultimate answer to the question... 'Scientific 'laws' not withstanding.

What is the answer?
JoeTB
Guest
 

Re: Simple question

Unread postby moses » Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:28 am

JoeTB wrote:The question is this: Does the Earth precess relative to only the stars, or also to the rest of the solar system?
Perihelion hovers around January 4-2, and Aphelion is around July 4-2. Should this not have moved a week one way or the other since the calender reforms? When I am analyzing the movements of the planets over long periods, shouldn't the date have to be adjusted periodically to account for 'wobble' difference?
This one answer gives us the ultimate answer to the question... 'Scientific 'laws' not withstanding.
What is the answer?

To keep time correctly, days are added in every now and then, and periodically, so as
the Sun, the Earth and some fixed star are always in line at a specific date. Now the
axis of the Earth has moved (precessed) in this time. This precession is unlikely to alter
aphelion, nor the orbital period of the Earth around the Sun. Thus, as I see it, the
tropical year has an amount of precession in it.

If the Sun curves in trajectory, then Sirius would have the same curve if it has not
precessed in the last 2,000 years. Which makes one think that whatever forced
curved Sirius' also curved the Sun's trajectory. One says gravity, another electricity.
Interesting either way.

Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby moses » Sun Apr 06, 2008 11:16 pm

OK - wrong, so take2 :
To keep mid summer as Jun 22, the tropical year is measured from the time that
the North Pole points exactly away from the Sun. The sidereal year is when the Sun,
Earth and a fixed star are in line. The difference between these times is due to the
movement of the pole which is precession. Aphelion is considered to move slowly, so
that it takes 112,000 years for aphelion to do one lap of the Sun.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby Solar » Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:48 pm

The Earth rotates and the aether within body Earth rotates with it, given that the Michelson-Morley experiment had shown that the Earth's motion around the Sun relative to the aether could not be detected. In those days physicists suspected that the aether had a mass density of the order of 100 gm/cc. It would therefore have a very substantial spin angular momentum owing to its rotation with body Earth.

Now, ask yourself a question. How does that aether affect the Earth's precession? The Earth's spin axis is steadily changing direction as it progresses during a 25,765 year cycle. What happens to that aether spin? It must adjust to keep in step and adjust the orientation of its own spin axis with the same 25,765 year cycle, but does it do that in steps or at a very steady rate? If it does it in a jerky fashion the aether will be disturbed and there are bound to be physical consequences affecting body Earth.

For example, suppose the changes occur by concentric shells of spherical sections of aether progressively adjusting in spin direction as the disturbing adjustments ripple radially through Earth from the ionosphere to its centre. That will certainly affect radio signals. It will also affect gravity!

It was not 19th century knowledge but research in our 20th century on offset precessing gyroscopes that revealed anti-gravity effects. This is the research finding of Professor Eric Laithwaite of the Imperial College in London, England. Note that, on this latter point, as I proceed in compiling these Web pages, I will be incorporating a copy of my paper entitled 'Ghost Mass and the Unseen Energy World as Revealed by the Anomalies of the Gyroscope' [The Toth-Maatian Review, v. 6, pp. 3169-3171 (1987)]. Web page abstract [1987j].

Reverting to my main argument, it follows that, since the Earth itself precesses and affects the aether sharing its spin, so that aether is subject to its own 'forced precession'. If that brings along a gravitational anomaly, a transient weakening of gravitational attraction on parts of body Earth, then earthquakes will ensue along fault lines where there are weaknesses in the Earth's crust. The trigger is the jerky migration of the spherical shells of aether in bringing about the reorientation of the aether spin axis. -EARTHQUAKES AND GEOMAGNETISM © Harold Aspden, 1997

Interesting.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby nick c » Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:35 pm

JoeTB wrote:
The question is this: Does the Earth precess relative to only the stars, or also to the rest of the solar system?


That is the crux of the matter.
I would think that there could be some observation or measurement that would eliminate one of these options. For instance, if the same precession (as on Earth) were to not be observed on some other planet (Mars, or Luna) in the solar system then that would indicate that the Earth's precession was due to the Earth's wobbling, and vice-versa if the opposite results were obtained. Just an example, I am sure someone could come up with some other, less expensive experiment. Well, the point is there must be some observation(s) that could determine which theory best explains precession. Is it possible to determine this with a space telescope, such as the Hubble? or would it be the same as an Earth based telescope?
If it were determined that precession was actually caused by the Sun's (and the whole solar system's) motion (corkscrewing?) through the galaxy than perhaps this can be explained without resorting to a hidden stellar companion. A Birkeland current through the Milky Way's spiral arms, as has already been suggested elsewhere on this forum. It would seem to me that a brown dwarf at 1000 AU [would be outside the Sun's plasmasphere which extends to about 100 AU (?)] and would be shining with it's own light, and be visible from Earth, at least telescopically (at a magnitude well within the range of a backyard telescope.) I would think that it would have been discovered by an observatory by now, as the skies have been searched with machines that blink photos, taken at different times, for many years looking for new planets. But then perhaps I am overestimating it's luminosity.
That might be a good question for the BAUT forum, if put forth carefully? How bright would a brown or red dwarf star appear to an Earthbound observer at a distance of 1000AU?
or something like that.
Or have you already been banned there? like so many others :lol:
I would think that mainstream astronomers would not have a problem with the concept, and would judge the thesis fairly, on evidence. I say that because the discovery of a companion to Sol would not entail any paradigm shift, that is, there is no challenge to conventional theory as multiple star systems are most common, some with members very far apart. The discovery of a companion would be quite a coup for any astronomer bringing much good publicity and fame.
Nick
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests