# Thread: [Alsor on Axis wobbling (or not)]

1. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137

## [Alsor on Axis wobbling (or not)]

Originally Posted by Githyanki
This leads me to believe axis-wobbling doesn't really occur; am I right?
Yes. 'Axis-wobbling' induced gravitationally of gravitationally formed body is impossible.
It's easy to prove this mathematically.

2. Originally Posted by Alsor
Yes. 'Axis-wobbling' induced gravitationally of gravitationally formed body is impossible.
It's easy to prove this mathematically.
Perhaps you should take this to ATM, since it's quite solidly against the accepted answer.

3. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
"Earth's axial tilt has only varied between about 22 and 24.5 degrees, because our relatively large Moon helps maintain a stable tilt."

It's incorrect - axis doesn't changes.
Orbital plane precesess only.

24.5 - 22 = 2.5 = 1.25 * 2;

Orbits inclination difference - Earth and Jupiter: 1.57 - 0.32 = 1.25

4. Originally Posted by Alsor
"Earth's axial tilt has only varied between about 22 and 24.5 degrees, because our relatively large Moon helps maintain a stable tilt."

It's incorrect - axis doesn't changes.
Orbital plane precesess only.

24.5 - 22 = 2.5 = 1.25 * 2;

Orbits inclination difference - Earth and Jupiter: 1.57 - 0.32 = 1.25

Dear Alsor, welcome to BAUT.
However, if you want to make claims that are different from mainstream science you will have to do it in the ATM (Against The Mainstream) section of the board.
An example would be your claim "axis doesn't change". Maybe you don't understand that the direction of the axis is meant, which is wel known to change. Then whatever calculation you put at the end of your message, you would have to explain way more that just some numerology. And your numbers are incorrect, inclination difference between Jupiter and the Earth is 1.31 degrees.

5. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
I'm not interested working against any stream.

Orbits precession is simple calculation.

Maybe 1.31; there are other planets, and precession isn't simple - in one plane, but more complicated.

Alsor, your claims are now under the ATM (Against the Mainstream) forum rules. Please check out the links in my signature.

7. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2003
Posts
1,221
Originally Posted by Alsor
Yes. 'Axis-wobbling' induced gravitationally of gravitationally formed body is impossible.
It's easy to prove this mathematically.
So you will be providing this easy mathematical proof then?

8. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by Grashtel
So you will be providing this easy mathematical proof then?
I'll tell you why there is no axial precession of planets (objects gravitationally bonded).

Gravitational tidal forces stretch the body, and then the principal axes change. Thus, the body is not rotating around the main axis, so precessional moment arises, proportional to the elongation and spin.

You can quickly calculate the approximate elongation of Earth, which balance the torque forces on the equatorial bulge and completely reset the precession.

precession: p = 2 f * W; hence: f = 0.5 P / W;
and elongation in meters is: h = f * R;

Data: W = 2pi / 1 day, p = 2pi/26000 years, R = 6370 km;
ie: h = 0.5 * 6370 km * 1 day / 26,000 years = 33.5cm.

As you can see just such a tidal deformations are measured (average), and this is not a random coincidence, but the condition of natural balance.

Moments of inertia of Earth are adjusted to a hypothetical precession with a period of 26,000 years. Real are likely to compatible with Chandler Wobble.

Greet!

9. Originally Posted by Alsor
Yes. 'Axis-wobbling' induced gravitationally of gravitationally formed body is impossible.
Please define "axis-wobbling" as you use it.

Originally Posted by Alsor
I'm not interested working against any stream.
You appear to either be using the term "axis-wobbling" in an unconventional way or you are arguing against well accepted ("mainstream") science.

10. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
You known how calculate eqatorial bulge?
So, reverse this process and you find, what was lost in lunisolar theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide
"The semidiurnal amplitude of terrestrial tides can reach about 55 cm at the equator which is important in GPS calibration and VLBI measurements."

11. Originally Posted by Alsor
You known how calculate eqatorial bulge?
So, reverse this process and you find, what was lost in lunisolar theory.
What was lost?

12. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
These centimeters of tidal deformations was overlooked.

13. Originally Posted by Alsor
These centimeters of tidal deformations was overlooked.
By who? When? How? Why? In what context? What was the result of this "overlooking" and how is the result better when not "overlooked"?

(Also - it'd help if you quoted the post you are replying to, it makes the thread much easier to read.)

14. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by pzkpfw
What was the result of this "overlooking" and how is the result better when not "overlooked"?
Actual results are well known: general gravitational anomalies and fantastic numerical coincidences.

Originally Posted by pzkpfw
Lunisolar precession theory is wrong and superfluous.
Earth's axial precession does not exist.

15. "Lunisolar theory"? The last time I heard that phrase, it was from somebody claiming we were orbiting Sirius, an idea that has a LOT of problems. Is this more of the same? If so, that would be extreme ATM and has been discussed before here.

16. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Yes, I know that speculation.
I resolved this problem without stars.

17. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
2,445

## Heat Death of the Universe

Originally Posted by Alsor
Yes, I know that speculation.
I resolved this problem without stars.
Without stars? Amazing.

Does this mean without observations? Please refer to the signature line below, and provide us with peer reviewed supporting evidence.

18. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
We have better observations, for example Moon phases and periods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

Orbital period T = 27.321582 d
Synodic period T' = 29.530589 d

Can we calculate orbital period of Earth?
Of course, we can:

1/1year = 1/T - 1/T' = 1/365.242124 d;

19. Originally Posted by Alsor
1/1year = 1/T - 1/T' = 1/365.242124 d;
And why not use the sidereal year?

20. Alsor, you will now present a full description of your idea about the "axis wobbling", including which data you used and which calculations you have made and why.

21. Since when is 'According to me' valid support or evidence for your own speculation?

22. 1761 June 6
5 synodic periods, ~2920 days
1769 June 3–4
66 synodic periods, ~38538 days
1874 December 9
5 synodic periods, ~2920 days
1882 December 6
76 synodic periods, ~44379 days
2004 June 8
5 synodic periods, ~2920 days
2012 June 6

In both the pairs you mentioned, it's about 88756 days or 152 synodic periods. Using just the days, this gives a synodic period of 583.92 which is also the mainstream value to within the uncertainty caused by using whole days instead of the precise times.

I didn't bother to use the precise times of the transits because it's fairly obvious that there are no problems, definitely not on the scale of 3.5 days.

Now tell us where you got the 20.5 minutes from and 250 years from, I see those numbers nowhere.
And next time, please show your own calculations first rather than making me waste my time confirming the mainstream.

And tell me what all this has to do with the precession of the Earth's axis?

23. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen
In both the pairs you mentioned, it's about 88756 days or 152 synodic periods. Using just the days, this gives a synodic period of 583.92 which is also the mainstream value to within the uncertainty caused by using whole days instead of the precise times.

I didn't bother to use the precise times of the transits because it's fairly obvious that there are no problems, definitely not on the scale of 3.5 days.

Now tell us where you got the 20.5 minutes from and 250 years from, I see those numbers nowhere.
And next time, please show your own calculations first rather than making me waste my time confirming the mainstream.

And tell me what all this has to do with the precession of the Earth's axis?
584.92 d - the correct synodic period (with an error less than 1 minute).

Because there is no precession of the Earth's axis (is physically impossible):
Earth orbital period = 365.2422 d
Venus-Earth synodic = 583.92 d
Venus orbital period: 1/(1/583.92 + 1/365.2422) = 224.6952 d;

5 : 8 : 13 (synodic : Earth : Venus)

Pentagram rotation (backward):
5 * 583.92 / 365.2422 = 7.9936;
8 - 7.9936 = 0.0064;
0.0064 / 8 = 0.0008; (per 1 y).

0.0008 * 250 = 0.2 = 1/5;
Pentagram rotates 72 degrees per 250 years.

24. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Alsor

Because there is no precession of the Earth's axis (is physically impossible).
Why do you keep repeating falsities that have already been refuted (both by calculation and, more importantly, by observation)?

25. Originally Posted by Alsor
Because there is no precession of the Earth's axis (is physically impossible):
Now you might just be able to make a case, if you had the proper evidence and theoretical model, that the Earth doesn't have any procession(and lets be clear so far you have failed to do so). To claim it is impossible however is taking things to another level. Please explain what in mainstream physics rules out precession?

26. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by Garrison
Now you might just be able to make a case, if you had the proper evidence and theoretical model, that the Earth doesn't have any procession(and lets be clear so far you have failed to do so). To claim it is impossible however is taking things to another level. Please explain what in mainstream physics rules out precession?
1. The correct calculation must take into account the tidal deformations.

2. They are observed - up to 60 cm at the equator, exactly as much as needed.

3. Gravitational equilibrium = equipotential surface (not necessarily perfectly and permanently, just an average over time - no evolution).

4. Formal proof zero torque on the mass in equilibrium remains in force.

27. Originally Posted by Alsor
1. The correct calculation must take into account the tidal deformations.

2. They are observed - up to 60 cm at the equator, exactly as much as needed.

3. Gravitational equilibrium = equipotential surface (not necessarily perfectly and permanently, just an average over time - no evolution).

4. Formal proof zero torque on the mass in equilibrium remains in force.
I'm not seeing any citations or evidence there, just more of your claims.

28. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Alsor
1. The correct calculation must take into account the tidal deformations.
...and, when you do that, IF you do the calculations correctly, you will get precession, as I have shown you and as observation shows.

3. Gravitational equilibrium = equipotential surface (not necessarily perfectly and permanently, just an average over time - no evolution).
As I pointed out to you several times already, the above assertion is false.

4. Formal proof zero torque on the mass in equilibrium remains in force.

As I pointed out to you, your "formal proof" is false. As such, it is contradicted by observation.

29. Originally Posted by Alsor
584.92 d - the correct synodic period (with an error less than 1 minute).

Because there is no precession of the Earth's axis (is physically impossible):
Earth orbital period = 365.2422 d
Venus-Earth synodic = 583.92 d
Venus orbital period: 1/(1/583.92 + 1/365.2422) = 224.6952 d;
As Henrik points out, the Venus orbital period is usually taken to be 224.70069 d, why do you insist on the different value?

30. Originally Posted by grapes
As Henrik points out, the Venus orbital period is usually taken to be 224.70069 d, why do you insist on the different value?
He's using the tropical/Gregorian year of 365.2422 days rather than the sidereal year of 365.256 days to calculate the sidereal period of Venus, which is why he's getting it wrong.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•