Author of the Month :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Henrick – You said: “Of course Earth precesses in relation to the Sun :-o) after all, the pole stars change - together with those comprising Draco.”

See how tricky this is? You have just claimed local motion (relation to the Sun) but used a stellar reference frame (Draco) as your proof. Remember the stars are “outside” the SS. So to prove the earth wobbles relative to something “inside” the solar system you would have to show it wobbled relative to the sun or moon or planets. Currently no astronomer does this, and for good reason, everything in the solar system has a much higher rate of proper motion than stars outside the solar system. But there are some ways the truth can be derived, such as the lunar equations, but to date the paradigm is so comfortable, no one is even asking the question if precession might have an alternative cause.

The official method of measurement, Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), measures changes in earth orientation (the big one being precession) relative to quasars, energetic stars far outside the moving frame of the solar system. But the oversight is the luni-solar theory does not consider reference frame changes, meaning the dynamicists assume all changes in earth orientation are due to local dynamics (like the gravity of the sun and earth tugging on the oblate earth, earthquakes, tidal motions, etc. etc.) and therefore they effectively use a static solar system model. It has been this way for hundred of years - thanks to Copernicus who said the sun does not move.

The observable of precession (stars moving across sky) is obviously real and ongoing – and clearly most people believe this to be the result of a wobbling earth – but we can find no evidence the earth wobbles more than a few arc seconds relative to objects within the solar system.

Now obviously to claim the earth does not wobble at all is heresy. I do recognize nutation (roughly 6"-9" of bob over an 18 year period, exactly in synch with the geo-location of the moon) and Chandler wobble (about 10 feet of axial reorientation), but none of these approach the magnitude of precession, which exceeds 50"p/y – that’s big!

Needless to say I have taken a lot of flack for suggesting that the precession observable has a largely non-local cause. But unless some very compelling evidence arises to the contrary I am convinced the solar system moves. Eppur si muove.



“Truly the greatest gift you can give is that of your own self-transformation.”
Chinese Philosopher – Lao Tzu

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
The Celestial Clock 278 Walter Cruttenden 03-Sep-12 20:20
Re: The Celestial Clock 106 Dr. Lew Graham 03-Sep-12 21:51
Re: The Celestial Clock 107 Walter Cruttenden 03-Sep-12 23:33
no lost star, only knowledge.. 103 hendrik dirker 06-Sep-12 16:34
Re: no lost star, only knowledge.. 71 Walter Cruttenden 07-Sep-12 03:20
Re: no lost star, only knowledge.. 110 hendrik dirker 08-Sep-12 17:52
The solar system moves 74 Walter Cruttenden 09-Sep-12 00:20
Re: The solar system moves 104 hendrik dirker 09-Sep-12 15:43
Re: The solar system moves 53 Walter Cruttenden 10-Sep-12 07:15
It is what it is 81 hendrik dirker 11-Sep-12 23:00
Re: It is what it is 92 Walter Cruttenden 12-Sep-12 04:38
Re: The Celestial Clock 71 Corpuscles 03-Sep-12 22:52
Re: The Celestial Clock 72 Walter Cruttenden 03-Sep-12 23:57
Re: The Celestial Clock 73 carolb 04-Sep-12 02:24
Re: The Celestial Clock 41 Walter Cruttenden 04-Sep-12 19:22
Re: The Celestial Clock 86 Nolondil 05-Sep-12 23:41
Re: The Celestial Clock 39 Walter Cruttenden 07-Sep-12 20:56
Re: Yes, I get the occasional negative response 101 Thunderbird 04-Sep-12 03:08
Luna Capture 93 Dr. Lew Graham 04-Sep-12 04:00
Re: Luna Capture 72 Thunderbird 04-Sep-12 15:51
Mythology on Luna Capture 71 Dr. Lew Graham 05-Sep-12 04:09
Re: Luna Capture 134 Audrey 05-Sep-12 04:09
Re: Yes, I get the occasional negative response 53 Walter Cruttenden 04-Sep-12 19:25
Re: The Celestial Clock 79 Bibhu Dev Misra 04-Sep-12 08:42
Re: The Celestial Clock 74 Walter Cruttenden 04-Sep-12 19:39
Re: The Celestial Clock 79 Bibhu Dev Misra 05-Sep-12 08:25
Re: The Celestial Clock 85 Walter Cruttenden 05-Sep-12 19:59
Re: The Celestial Clock 50 Sirius7237 04-Sep-12 16:11
Re: The Celestial Clock 66 Walter Cruttenden 04-Sep-12 20:32
Re: The Celestial Clock, 54 michael seabrook 05-Sep-12 21:53
Re: The Celestial Clock, 78 Walter Cruttenden 06-Sep-12 06:54
Re: The Celestial Clock, 70 michael seabrook 06-Sep-12 21:00
The 'correct' time on the Celestial Clock, 75 Dr. Lew Graham 06-Sep-12 21:16
Re: The 'correct' time on the Celestial Clock, 91 carolb 06-Sep-12 22:49
Explain 21 December 2012 precisely? 71 Dr. Lew Graham 06-Sep-12 23:21
Re: The 'correct' time on the Celestial Clock, 75 michael seabrook 07-Sep-12 14:13
Re: The 'correct' time on the Celestial Clock, 53 Walter Cruttenden 07-Sep-12 21:24
Re: The 'correct' time on the Celestial Clock, 82 michael seabrook 08-Sep-12 12:21
Re: The 'correct' time on the Celestial Clock, 52 Walter Cruttenden 08-Sep-12 19:34
Re: The 'correct' time on the Celestial Clock, 81 Bibhu Dev Misra 09-Sep-12 07:37
Re: The 'correct' time on the Celestial Clock, 36 Walter Cruttenden 10-Sep-12 07:41
Re: The Celestial Clock 64 Bibhu Dev Misra 07-Sep-12 19:17
Re: The Celestial Clock 81 Walter Cruttenden 08-Sep-12 19:27
Queastion: Earth crust displacement 88 finaltom 30-Sep-12 02:52
Re: Queastion: Earth crust displacement 88 Walter Cruttenden 30-Sep-12 21:56
Re: Queastion: Earth crust displacement 65 finaltom 30-Sep-12 23:04


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.