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 338 Walter Cruttenden 03-Sep-12 20:20
Re: The Celestial Clock 150 Dr. Lew Graham 03-Sep-12 21:51
Re: The Celestial Clock 143 Walter Cruttenden 03-Sep-12 23:33
no lost star, only knowledge.. 145 hendrik dirker 06-Sep-12 16:34
Re: no lost star, only knowledge.. 95 Walter Cruttenden 07-Sep-12 03:20
Re: no lost star, only knowledge.. 151 hendrik dirker 08-Sep-12 17:52
The solar system moves 112 Walter Cruttenden 09-Sep-12 00:20
Re: The solar system moves 148 hendrik dirker 09-Sep-12 15:43
Re: The solar system moves 88 Walter Cruttenden 10-Sep-12 07:15
It is what it is 103 hendrik dirker 11-Sep-12 23:00
Re: It is what it is 136 Walter Cruttenden 12-Sep-12 04:38
Re: The Celestial Clock 94 Corpuscles 03-Sep-12 22:52
Re: The Celestial Clock 109 Walter Cruttenden 03-Sep-12 23:57
Re: The Celestial Clock 98 carolb 04-Sep-12 02:24
Re: The Celestial Clock 61 Walter Cruttenden 04-Sep-12 19:22
Re: The Celestial Clock 128 Nolondil 05-Sep-12 23:41
Re: The Celestial Clock 62 Walter Cruttenden 07-Sep-12 20:56
Re: Yes, I get the occasional negative response 142 Thunderbird 04-Sep-12 03:08
Luna Capture 139 Dr. Lew Graham 04-Sep-12 04:00
Re: Luna Capture 116 Thunderbird 04-Sep-12 15:51
Mythology on Luna Capture 105 Dr. Lew Graham 05-Sep-12 04:09
Re: Luna Capture 174 Audrey 05-Sep-12 04:09
Re: Yes, I get the occasional negative response 85 Walter Cruttenden 04-Sep-12 19:25
Re: The Celestial Clock 134 Bibhu Dev Misra 04-Sep-12 08:42
Re: The Celestial Clock 122 Walter Cruttenden 04-Sep-12 19:39
Re: The Celestial Clock 128 Bibhu Dev Misra 05-Sep-12 08:25
Re: The Celestial Clock 123 Walter Cruttenden 05-Sep-12 19:59
Re: The Celestial Clock 73 Sirius7237 04-Sep-12 16:11
Re: The Celestial Clock 88 Walter Cruttenden 04-Sep-12 20:32
Re: The Celestial Clock, 86 michael seabrook 05-Sep-12 21:53
Re: The Celestial Clock, 106 Walter Cruttenden 06-Sep-12 06:54
Re: The Celestial Clock, 102 michael seabrook 06-Sep-12 21:00
The 'correct' time on the Celestial Clock, 123 Dr. Lew Graham 06-Sep-12 21:16
Re: The 'correct' time on the Celestial Clock, 138 carolb 06-Sep-12 22:49
Explain 21 December 2012 precisely? 122 Dr. Lew Graham 06-Sep-12 23:21
Re: The 'correct' time on the Celestial Clock, 122 michael seabrook 07-Sep-12 14:13
Re: The 'correct' time on the Celestial Clock, 86 Walter Cruttenden 07-Sep-12 21:24
Re: The 'correct' time on the Celestial Clock, 106 michael seabrook 08-Sep-12 12:21
Re: The 'correct' time on the Celestial Clock, 74 Walter Cruttenden 08-Sep-12 19:34
Re: The 'correct' time on the Celestial Clock, 120 Bibhu Dev Misra 09-Sep-12 07:37
Re: The 'correct' time on the Celestial Clock, 63 Walter Cruttenden 10-Sep-12 07:41
Re: The Celestial Clock 104 Bibhu Dev Misra 07-Sep-12 19:17
Re: The Celestial Clock 112 Walter Cruttenden 08-Sep-12 19:27
Queastion: Earth crust displacement 131 finaltom 30-Sep-12 02:52
Re: Queastion: Earth crust displacement 136 Walter Cruttenden 30-Sep-12 21:56
Re: Queastion: Earth crust displacement 89 finaltom 30-Sep-12 23:04


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.