["celeste"], then no change in planetary orbits will cause a change in the precessional rate, or precessional axis itself.
How can no change cause any change ?
["celeste"], then no change in planetary orbits will cause a change in the precessional rate, or precessional axis itself.
OP by Jim Weninger
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.
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/ ... de115.htmlPerihelion Precession of the Planets
The Solar System consists of eight major planets (Mercury to Neptune) moving around the Sun in slightly elliptical orbits which are approximately co-planar with one another. According to Chapter 5, if we neglect the relatively weak interplanetary gravitational interactions then the perihelia of the various planets (i.e., the points on their orbits at which they are closest to the Sun) remain fixed in space. However, once these interactions are taken into account, it turns out that the planetary perihelia all slowly precess around the Sun. We can calculate the approximate rate of perihelion ...
celeste wrote:You just don’t accept that there could be short period changes in planetary orbits, while we still maintain the longer period cycles? As if if the longer period cycles were dependent on the shorter cycles?
I will agree, that if precession is driven by gravitational tugs as in the mainstream model, then yes, alter the position of planets, and the precessional cycle is gone. If on the other hand, precession has a larger scale cause, ( as an example, is caused by the background magnetic field), then no change in planetary orbits will cause a change in the precessional rate, or precessional axis itself.
jacmac wrote:seasmith:
...
Welcome back Ray.
Your Harmonics Theory is quite compelling; and complicated.
While there seems to be a lot of evidence of natural events happening in a harmonic cyclical relationship,
I personally am looking for causal, or direct relationship, explanations for some events, such as the solar cycle as it relates to the planets and their orbits.
You are dealing in some very large numbers of years with the Milankovitch variables (which I know nothing about).
Statements on that time scale are generally suspect to me(additional study on my part notwithstanding).
Thanks for posting your papers.
Jack
celeste wrote:...
If someone tells you that these cycles were stable and predictable for thousands of years, ask them why they are not even stable or predictable over the last hundred.
...
How can anyone argue that the precessional cycle is stable for many thousands of years, if they can’t even get a handle on how it has been changing over the last 100. It’s all B.S.
RayTomes wrote:celeste wrote:You just don’t accept that there could be short period changes in planetary orbits, while we still maintain the longer period cycles? As if if the longer period cycles were dependent on the shorter cycles?
I will agree, that if precession is driven by gravitational tugs as in the mainstream model, then yes, alter the position of planets, and the precessional cycle is gone. If on the other hand, precession has a larger scale cause, ( as an example, is caused by the background magnetic field), then no change in planetary orbits will cause a change in the precessional rate, or precessional axis itself.
...
I do think that most of the longer term cycles are connected with huge e/m standing waves. That is what the harmonics theory says and it is able to successfully calculate the periods of many common cycles (although not say which periods will appear in which variables). And the longer period cycles are more fundamental than the shorter ones IMO.
If we accept your proposition, then there are huge coincidences in cycles periods relating to planetary motions and other variables. Its possible but it sets off warning bells.
OTOH, many long cycles are intimately connected with planetary orbits, such as the 2300 year cycle in climate and the sun which relates to good alignments of the four gas giant planets. More on this in answer to another question.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests