It is possible that the solar system is spinning?

[a1call]

No. The observed (local) parameters remain unaffected.

Replace only currently used in the calculations the rotation of the reference system:
w' = w - W.

by the real rotation:
w_full = w + W.

In this way we obtain full compliance of calculations with the observations:

Earth orbits the Sun: 360 deg - 50'' in the tropical year.
The axis rotates backwards, so at this moment we have the Sun where it should be.
At the same time, the entire solar system revolves about +50''.

Total: 360 degrees, and with an orbital period equal to tropical year.

Wouldn't that make the tropical year equal to sidereal year?
Wouldn't that be false?
Did you get the bit about the synodic month (ie moon phases) are in apparent sync with the tropical year over long periods and this synchronization is not the result of any known mechanism?

[Alsor]

Alsor, it seems you are not really asking a question but saying that the currently accepted model is wrong and why it is wrong. Is this correct?

I asked a question... and nobody knows anything, even that circle has 360 degrees.

[Tensor]

w' = w - W;

w'' = w' + W = w;

That's what the calculation shows.

Only in this way we get a full cycle without changing the period.

The change of reference system is nothing - nothing changes, but the period must be 360 degrees, so there is no other way.

So lets review. You ask for any observation that would falsify a rotating solar system, without mentioning an Earth whose axis precedes. Then when presented with an observation that would falsify a rotating solar system, you introduce a precession of Earth's axis, completely ad hoc, to be able to keep a rotating solar system. Since the Earth's precession with a rotating solar system is the same as Earth's precession without a rotating solar system, why bother with a rotating solar system? Just use precession, as is done now.

[Tensor]

So, you are saying that the Earth precesses, and just happens to precess at the exact same rate as the solar system rotates, right?

The change of reference system is nothing - nothing changes, but the period must be 360 degrees, so there is no other way.

It now appears that you are saying there has to be precession, to keep up with the rotation of the solar system. However, I went back to one of your other threads where you've already tried to tell us that there is no precession of the equinox. In Post #103 of that thread you said:

Real physics and measurements show very clearly, and without any doubt that the precession of Earth's axis does not exist.
Calculate date of several solar eclipses.

So, it appears you have changed your mind on this, but only as a way to save a spinning solar system. That's almost a perfect definition of ad hoc. If the Earth's axis can precess to save the spinning solar system, why can't it precess as an explanation for the precession of the equinoxes?

Then, also in post #103, there is this:

The simpler the better.
The simplest rule is strongest, and therefore stand beyond all belief, illusion, bungling and deception.

Well, since you believe simpler is better and since a precession only explanation for the precession of the equinoxes is simpler than a spinning solar system with an ad hoc precession, why isn't a precession only explanation acceptable to you?

[Hornblower]

In the opening post Alsor appeared to express a concern that using the tropical rather than sidereal periods of revolution for calculating the phase of the Moon should introduce an error, and was asking if some sort of solar system spin could account for the fact that the calculations work out accurately. So far he has yet to even show a sample calculation for the Moon’s phase, let alone show any discrepancy. I am surprised that nobody has called Alsor on this so far. The algebra for this exercise is fairly simple, and here it is, assuming circular orbits for the purpose of this thought exercise.

First, let’s calculate the Moon’s angular motion relative to the Sun from their apparent motions relative to the background stars. These follow from the sidereal month and year. If we take the reciprocals of the amount of time in the month and year we get the respective angular velocities. The angular velocity (velocity for short) of the Moon relative to the Sun will be the difference between the respective velocities with respect to the background stars.

Let Wm = velocity of Moon with respect to (wrt) the stars.
Ws = velocity of Sun wrt stars
Wm,s = velocity of Moon wrt Sun
Wm,s = Wm – Ws

This is the rate at which the angular separation of the Moon and the Sun changes as a function of time.

Now suppose we were given only the tropical month and year. Taking their reciprocals gives us the angular velocities wrt the equinox point, which is moving wrt the stars as a result of precession.

We = velocity of equinox wrt stars
Wm,e = velocity of moon wrt equinox
Ws,e = velocity of Sun wrt equinox
Wm,e = Wm – We
Ws,e = Ws – We

Now let’s calculate the rate of change of the angle between the Sun and Moon in this moving frame of reference.

Wm,s = Wm,e – Ws,e
= Wm – We – (Ws – We) = Wm – Ws

My algebra shows that the result is the same whether we start with the sidereal or tropical periods. I am confident that it is valid for the same reason I am confident that the relative velocity of two cars, one going 60 mph and the other 50 relative to the road, would be 10 mph regardless of whether we treat the road as stationary or as moving with the Earth through the solar system. I tried it with the published values of these periods from Norton’s Star Atlas. For the synodic month, they differed by only about 1/20 of a second, which I attribute to rounding errors in the published values. This would be roughly 10 seconds in 18 years.

[captain swoop]

I asked a question... and nobody knows anything, even that circle has 360 degrees.

Alsor No, this is not helpful. Please read the rules on civility and decorum.

It seems to me that you have gone from asking a question to advocating an Against the Mainstream position. You have been given lots of answers to your questions but you seem to reject them.
Is it your position that current m odels are wrong or missing something? Do you accept the answers given so far?

[Robert Tulip]

Discussion here seems to neglect apsidal precession, also known as orbital or perihelion precession.

Earth's axis precesses against the stars at a rate of one cycle per 25765 years, causing the well known precession of the equinoxes. This process is embedded within orbital precession. Due to movement of the whole orbit of the earth (apsides) with period of 112,000 years with respect to the background stars, earth's climate cycle has a period of about 21,600 years, the time it takes for the summer solstice to move from perihelion to perihelion, forming a main component of the Milankovitch climate cycle of glaciation.

The December solstice passed perihelion in 1296 AD. If axial precession were the only sort, then the solstice would return to perihelion after 25765 years. However, the perihelion is moving in the opposite direction against the stars from the solstice due to apsidal precession, making the period return of the solstice return shorter than the equinoctial precession. The perihelion has moved from the solstice about 12 days over the last 700 years, and now occurs on about 3 January.

[WayneFrancis]

I asked a question... and nobody knows anything, even that circle has 360 degrees.

I'm serious Alsor. Are you saying that all the scientists have missed something important here? Or are you asking if they missed something?

[Hornblower]

Discussion here seems to neglect apsidal precession, also known as orbital or perihelion precession.Earth's axis precesses against the stars at a rate of one cycle per 25765 years, causing the well known precession of the equinoxes. This process is embedded within orbital precession. Due to movement of the whole orbit of the earth (apsides) with period of 112,000 years with respect to the background stars, earth's climate cycle has a period of about 21,600 years, the time it takes for the summer solstice to move from perihelion to perihelion, forming a main component of the Milankovitch climate cycle of glaciation.

The December solstice passed perihelion in 1296 AD. If axial precession were the only sort, then the solstice would return to perihelion after 25765 years. However, the perihelion is moving in the opposite direction against the stars from the solstice due to apsidal precession, making the period return of the solstice return shorter than the equinoctial precession. The perihelion has moved from the solstice about 12 days over the last 700 years, and now occurs on about 3 January.

My bold. In post #10 I mentioned it as something that needed to be taken into account in calculating the difference between unperturbed circular orbits in the initial thought exercise and the real-world gravitationally perturbed, approximately Keplerian ellipses.

snip...
Now let’s consider the complications caused by the Sun’s severe gravitational perturbation of the Moon’s orbit and the other planets’ mild perturbations of the Earth’s orbit. This causes perigee/perihelion advance, increasing the interval between the Moon’s perigee passages to 27.55455 days and the Earth’s perihelion passages to 365.2596 days. These are averages with short term fluctuations that must be determined empirically. In addition there is evection, a monthly oscillation of the Moon’s angular position around the Keplerian values that would hold in the absence of gravitational perturbation. Kepler and subsequent mathematicians developed techniques for doing these complicated calculations with pencil and paper with the aid of logarithm and trig function tables, and modern computers have greatly speeded up and eased the task. We now can calculate phase times that are in good agreement with observations as timed with atomic master clocks. If I am not mistaken this is pretty much how the authors of the Astronomical Almanac calculate their position tables for the celestial bodies for navigation purposes.
...snip

[Alsor]

So lets review. You ask for any observation that would falsify a rotating solar system, without mentioning an Earth whose axis precedes. Then when presented with an observation that would falsify a rotating solar system, you introduce a precession of Earth's axis, completely ad hoc, to be able to keep a rotating solar system.

Many times I said that actual parameters (determined locally) remain unchanged.
I add only the rotation of the entire solar system - a consequence of the laws of geometry (rotation).

Since the Earth's precession with a rotating solar system is the same as Earth's precession without a rotating solar system, why bother with a rotating solar system? Just use precession, as is done now.

This rotation of solar system is already in the calculations: 360 - 50'' locally + 50'' externally = 360, full cycle (both rotations have to be real!)

Without it, the observed phases would be different.

[Tensor]

Discussion here seems to neglect apsidal precession, also known as orbital or perihelion precession.

snip....

The perihelion has moved from the solstice about 12 days over the last 700 years, and now occurs on about 3 January.

I was aware of it, it just wasn't pertinent to what I was trying to convey. From post #21:

...I realize that this example is extremely simplified (for one thing, the perihelion itself precesses), and the actual position of the axial tilt is not toward the sun at perihelion (it's actual almost opposite), but it still should be good enough to illustrate why the solar system doesn't spin. As I am quite sure our instruments could detect a fixed, with respect to the sun, axial tilt.

[Tensor]

Many times I said that actual parameters (determined locally) remain unchanged.
I add only the rotation of the entire solar system - a consequence of the laws of geometry (rotation).

Yes, you added a rotation of the entire solar system and asked if there were any observations that would falsify it. I provided that observation and your answer, in post #24 was:

Earth orbits the Sun: 360 deg - 50'' in the tropical year.
The axis rotates backwards, so at this moment we have the Sun where it should be.
At the same time, the entire solar system revolves about +50''.

So you didn't add "only" the rotation of the solar system, you also added an Earth axial rotation, to keep the sun in the proper place. If not, then the Earth's axis will be fixed with respect to the sun.

This rotation of solar system is already in the calculations: 360 - 50'' locally + 50'' externally = 360, full cycle (both rotations have to be real!)

Only in this way we get a full cycle without changing the period.

But you didn't seem to think so, since in post #26, in answer to my question about you phrase "axis rotating backward, you answer was:

Precession is backward, and in sync - Cassini's Laws (probably generalized).

Note you specifically stated that there is precession and it is in sync with the solar system rotation.

The change of reference system is nothing - nothing changes, but the period must be 360 degrees, so there is no other way.

And yet, when I asked specifically about an axial precession, you said, in Post #30:

So, you are saying that the Earth precesses, and just happens to precess at the exact same rate as the solar system rotates, right?

Without it, the observed phases would be different.
w' = w - W;
w'' = w' + W = w;
That's what the calculation shows.

So why, when asked about the Earth precessing at the same rate as the solar system, did you say "Without it, the observed phases would be different"?

I do wish you would clear this up for us. First you don't need a precession, then you do, then you don't. Which is it? And if you don't you would still have the problem of a fixed axial tilt, with respect to the sun.

[Alsor]

So why, when asked about the Earth precessing at the same rate as the solar system, did you say "Without it, the observed phases would be different"?

Moon's phases don't depend on the axial precession (the seasonal cycle we observe on the Earth surface... the Moon don't count our summers and winters).

The whole Solar System must to spin.

Without the precession of the axis we would have only a slightly longer seasonal cycle - about 20 minutes.

[tusenfem]

Okay, this has gone far enough now. I could, in the beginnig see this as an exersize in math, but alsor's ideas are moving further and further towards ATM, and thus this thread is moved.
It would be a good idea if alsor would give an extensive, detailed and understandable description of the how and what of these ideas, up to now it has been more than confusing, e.g. with respect to whether or not you believe there is precession and why that would or would not have an effect on the phases of the moon, etc.

[Alsor]

Let Wm = velocity of Moon with respect to (wrt) the stars.
Ws = velocity of Sun wrt stars
Wm,s = velocity of Moon wrt Sun
Wm,s = Wm – Ws

This is the rate at which the angular separation of the Moon and the Sun changes as a function of time.

Now suppose we were given only the tropical month and year. Taking their reciprocals gives us the angular velocities wrt the equinox point, which is moving wrt the stars as a result of precession.

We = velocity of equinox wrt stars
Wm,e = velocity of moon wrt equinox
Ws,e = velocity of Sun wrt equinox
Wm,e = Wm – We
Ws,e = Ws – We

Now let’s calculate the rate of change of the angle between the Sun and Moon in this moving frame of reference.

Wm,s = Wm,e – Ws,e
= Wm – We – (Ws – We) = Wm – Ws

My algebra shows that the result is the same whether we start with the sidereal or tropical periods.

This is the angular velocity, not a phase.

To calculate the phase is necessary the full cycle - the orbital period.

And this is the base for the unit of time.

T = 1 year = orbital period = ?

[Alsor]

Okay, this has gone far enough now. I could, in the beginnig see this as an exersize in math, but alsor's ideas are moving further and further towards ATM, and thus this thread is moved.
It would be a good idea if alsor would give an extensive, detailed and understandable description of the how and what of these ideas, up to now it has been more than confusing, e.g. with respect to whether or not you believe there is precession and why that would or would not have an effect on the phases of the moon, etc.

I do not agree - in mainstream circle has 360 degrees!

[Hornblower]

Let Wm = velocity of Moon with respect to (wrt) the stars.
Ws = velocity of Sun wrt stars
Wm,s = velocity of Moon wrt Sun
Wm,s = Wm – Ws

This is the rate at which the angular separation of the Moon and the Sun changes as a function of time.

Now suppose we were given only the tropical month and year. Taking their reciprocals gives us the angular velocities wrt the equinox point, which is moving wrt the stars as a result of precession.

We = velocity of equinox wrt stars
Wm,e = velocity of moon wrt equinox
Ws,e = velocity of Sun wrt equinox
Wm,e = Wm – We
Ws,e = Ws – We

Now let’s calculate the rate of change of the angle between the Sun and Moon in this moving frame of reference.

Wm,s = Wm,e – Ws,e
= Wm – We – (Ws – We) = Wm – Ws

My algebra shows that the result is the same whether we start with the sidereal or tropical periods.

This is the angular velocity, not a phase.

When we multiply a known angular velocity by elapsed time, we get the angle covered by the body in question. That gives us the phase of the Moon, to give a familiar example.

To calculate the phase is necessary the full cycle - the orbital period.

We can time the Moon's passage past any two accurately measured positions and find the angular velocity, and then extrapolate to find the time of the next full phase, for example, or conversely calculate the phase for any chosen future time.

For a thought exercise with perfectly circular orbits this is high school level math at the most. For the actual roughly elliptical, gravitationally perturbed orbits, we must make numerous timings along well-chosen increments and use more complicated higher math to evaluate the variations and get good predicted angular positions.

And this is the base for the unit of time.

T = 1 year = orbital period = ?

[Hornblower]

Some general remarks: As others have pointed out, the totality of Alsor's posting in this thread has been incoherent and inconsistent. Sometimes it is hard to tell whether he thinks the answer to his opening question is yes or no. I am posting primarily for others who may be reading this thread. If Alsor is unable to understand my explanations, or chooses to reject them for personal reasons, so be it.

[tusenfem]

I do not agree - in mainstream circle has 360 degrees!

This has NOTHING to do with whether a circle hass 360 degrees and you know it well.
This is also arguing moderation, which you also know should not be done in thread.
Infraction given.

ETA: this led to a 7 day suspension of alsor, I will close the thread for a week.