Mechanism for the polar alignment of planets

[celeste]

I'll start by just stating the ideas flat out. I'm hoping for challengers on all points.
1. The solar system configuration we have now, can be explained as Donald Scott shows here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPNMoalTTVE We have the sun traveling along a filament, with planets spiraling in "shells" around that axis.
2. We have a mechanism to then launch planets along the filament axis, leading to the polar alignment of planets, along the current solar system axis (ecliptic axis). This would be a sudden increase in current in the filament, with the effect as explained by Don in the last paragraph on page labeled 175 here http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -41-13.PDF
3. The signs we should see of a pulse in current along a filament are explained here under section IV, http://loa.ensta-paristech.fr/ilm/uploa ... 9_2007.pdf when they vary the input pulse along a filament, they see," The temporal asymmetry caused by these effects generates different temporal phase on the leading and trailing edges of the pulse intensity, resulting in asymmetric blueshifts and redshifts in the spectra"
4. We in fact do see these changes in redshift when we look up or down the filament axis, as shown in the pictures here http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/ ... uterer.pdf Here,the cool or warm lobes, which align with the ecliptic axis, are determined by redshift of the "cosmic microwaves"

[jacmac]

Celeste says:

We have a mechanism to then launch planets along the filament axis, leading to the polar alignment of planets, along the current solar system axis (ecliptic axis)

Sorry, but I am confused. What do you mean by "the polar alignment of planets" ?

Planets aligned up or down (or out )from a pole ?

And...what do you mean by the current solar system axis (ecliptic axis)?

The term axis usually means the imagined line passing through the north and south points of rotation of a body.
Also, the term ECLIPTIC usually describes the plane of the orbit of our earth, and the sun has an equatorial plane extended out from its equator. I have seen on this forum general usage of the term ECLIPTIC to describe the solar equatorial plane, but I think it is not helpful.

It can be hard to follow someones ideas when a term means different things.

Jack

[celeste]

Celeste says:

We have a mechanism to then launch planets along the filament axis, leading to the polar alignment of planets, along the current solar system axis (ecliptic axis)

Sorry, but I am confused. What do you mean by "the polar alignment of planets" ?

Planets aligned up or down (or out )from a pole ?

And...what do you mean by the current solar system axis (ecliptic axis)?

The term axis usually means the imagined line passing through the north and south points of rotation of a body.
Also, the term ECLIPTIC usually describes the plane of the orbit of our earth, and the sun has an equatorial plane extended out from its equator. I have seen on this forum general usage of the term ECLIPTIC to describe the solar equatorial plane, but I think it is not helpful.

It can be hard to follow someones ideas when a term means different things.

Jack

Jack, you are right. The most technically correct would be to use the invariable plane of the solar system as a reference. This is close to Jupiter's orbital plane, if someone wants a visual. So the current flowing through the solar system comes down ,orthogonally, through the invariable plane of the solar system. The center of this current is near the solar system barycenter. This is what Don Scott needed to do to make his model work(for Titius-Bode), although he did not state this explicitly. Absolutely, the sun is not always at the center of this filament, nor is the sun's spin axis aligned with the filament axis (we'd have no solar cycle if it were).

For the polar configuration of planets to match the recorded observations, we need the planets and their spin axes to be aligned along the filament, or on the axis of the invariable plane. Just to be clear, I mean the planets were "up and down", rather than spread across,and spiraling around, the solar system, as they are now.

[celeste]

I know I may be taking on too much at once here. For those that don't accept that there was a polar alignment of planets, or are still unsure whether Donald Scott's filament model is correct, then it is obviously absurd for me to argue that Don's model does explain the polar alignment.

We can start with those last points, however. We see in the lab, that there is a redshift/blueshift asymmetry comparing the leading edge to the trailing edge of a current pulse. We also observe, that there is a redshift/blueshift asymmetry from one pole of the solar system to the other. These are both observations. I would like anyone to comment on this, and tell me what they get from these to facts alone. That will be a good starting point.

[jacmac]

From celeste:

So the current flowing through the solar system comes down ,orthogonally, through the invariable plane of the solar system.

So, the polar alignment of planets was in the past. Now, our planet orbits determine the invariable plane and Dr. Scott's filament current is orthogonal to it. Correct so far ?

Question:
Our sun is said to be some 60 degrees angled to the galactic plane. That would put Dr. Scotts filament current also angled to the galactic plane. I thought, or assumed, the galactic current(s) would be roughly parallel to the galactic plane as put forward by Robertus Maximus in the Reconciliation? 2.0 topic. (Sorry I can not copy his diagrams from page one). What version are you presenting please ?

Jack

[celeste]

Question:
Our sun is said to be some 60 degrees angled to the galactic plane. That would put Dr. Scotts filament current also angled to the galactic plane. I thought, or assumed, the galactic current(s) would be roughly parallel to the galactic plane as put forward by Robertus Maximus in the Reconciliation? 2.0 topic. (Sorry I can not copy his diagrams from page one). What version are you presenting please ?

Jack

Jack, the filament which runs through our solar system, is a number of scales down from the current running along the arm of the galaxy. I can send you links to where any of these scales were discussed in more detail, but here is a general picture:
Current flows along the arms of galaxy. This leads to smaller scale filaments, some of which spiral in helical paths around and along the arm. The Pleiades stream and surrounding "local chimney", is one such helical stream. Within this stream, we get yet smaller filaments, one of which,is the local interstellar cloud. The sun itself skims along the surface of this cloud. It is on the surface of the local interstellar cloud, that lies the current filament which flows through our solar system.

[saul]

It might be relevant to your argument (I'm not sure I understand it fully) that:

Redshift / Bluseshift aka dipole axis of microwave backgroud radiation does NOT align with ecliptic axis NOR observed neutral atom (interstellar wind) inflow direction.

However thanks for your posts, you just remind me that all these axes which break local symmetry ought to be cataloged better and I really ought to undertake such a project.

[celeste]

It might be relevant to your argument (I'm not sure I understand it fully) that:

Redshift / Bluseshift aka dipole axis of microwave backgroud radiation does NOT align with ecliptic axis NOR observed neutral atom (interstellar wind) inflow direction.

However thanks for your posts, you just remind me that all these axes which break local symmetry ought to be cataloged better and I really ought to undertake such a project.

saul, So you are arguing against the results of http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/ ... uterer.pdf ?
And the other "axis of evil" results? I'm interested in why.
As far as interstellar wind direction, that is not expected to match direction of travel is it?
We would really have trouble explaining changes in interstellar wind direction as found here http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/int ... r-40-years
as having anything to do with the changing path of the sun to such a degree on the same time scale, correct?

[johnm33]

I'd be very grateful if somone could point me to a thread [or anything] that expands on what Don Scott is saying in the talks in the first post. Specifically about the path/thread the sun follows, what that is, how it's generated etc. also what that means regarding it's presumably complex spiral motion through 'space'.

[celeste]

I'd be very grateful if somone could point me to a thread [or anything] that expands on what Don Scott is saying in the talks in the first post. Specifically about the path/thread the sun follows, what that is, how it's generated etc. also what that means regarding it's presumably complex spiral motion through 'space'.

Here is a thread http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... f=3&t=7721 where we started to put together a picture of the Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC), and the G-cloud, and compared them to this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Nebula.jpg
In other words, you can think of our local cloud as being like one strand of the Double Helix Nebula, and the G cloud as being like the other strand.
Now to be sure, that is a level up, from the scale Don is talking about. It's been found that the sun is traveling along the surface of the LIC ,and the cloud itself has an excess of electrons at the surface. That is the source of the local current.

[johnm33]

Thanks Celeste appreciated.