Reader wonders if precession theories work for the other planets in our solar system

Sent: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:39:36 EDT
Subject: question about precession

> hi, i've been fascinated by your ideas and am trying to get your
> model represented on wikipedia, but have run into a bit of
> resistance from those who mistake conclusions for facts on which
> conclusions are based.
>
> in the process, i came to wonder this:
>
> if indeed it is the sun that is moving and not the earth's axis that
> is wobbling, wouldn't we expect all the planets to show a similar
> relationship between the sidereal and tropical day? that is to say,
> if the axises of the planets are wobbling, they should all wobbling
> differently. but if the sun is moving and the axises are not
> wobbling, shouldn't that motion affect all the planets in the same
> way, so that they all exhibit an analogous difference between the
> sidereal and tropical day, in accord with the speed of the orbit of each
> planet?

(A.I.)

___________________________________________________________

August 27, 2005

Thank you for your kind letter and for taking the time to ponder the precession problem. The idea to apply the theory of precession to other planets is probably as old as the problem itself. In the words of Tycho Brahe (1563) one could even say that “there are just as many measurements and methods as there are astronomers and all of them disagree. What's needed is a long term project with the aim of mapping the heavens conducted from a single location over a period of several years.” With his last statement Brahe hit the nail on the head. In fact, this same principle applies to the transit measurements of Sirius.

Almost 8 years ago rebel astronomer Halton Arp suggested to us in a personal letter to test our theory on the other planets of our solar system. We took his advice seriously and analyzed the situation to the best of our knowledge. Observations and the current astronomical data suggest that the Earth does not “wobble” relative to the Moon (Saros cycle) and Venus (Transit cycle), but mainstream astronomers had already decided the answers they wanted to get and rejected any alternatives even before beginning to deal with the evidence. Since lunisolar precession is being viewed as a fact based on conclusions derived from Newtonian concepts, it was easy enough for astronomers to theoretically calculate various precession rates for some of the other planets in our solar system. Taking into account the inclination of a planet’s axis relative to its orbital plane, its number of moons, orbital parameters and relatively unknown factors such as masses and rotation periods, all kinds of fantastic notions and numbers were produced. However, detailed records of long-term observations of axial motion and precise transit measurements of a planet’s rotation period do virtually not exist.

Hence, it would be tricky to perform a test of the “precession theory” on planets like Pluto, Neptune, Uranus, Jupiter, Venus and Mercury. Obviously, Saturn and Mars are the only candidates left. But unlike Jupiter, Saturn’s exact rotation period of its different zones is difficult to measure due to a lack of surface details. Yet its system of rings and moons might eventually offer us a clue about changes in the orientation of its rotational axis relative to space.
In the spirit of resolving the precession enigma Mars could prove to be another “target of opportunity”. Although Mars is quite a bit smaller than Earth and has no large moon, its axis inclination and rotation period is almost the same as Earth’s, making it an ideal object for comparison purposes. Knowing its exact period of rotation, inclination and orientation of its axis and various orbital parameters, astronomers have concluded that the presumed precession period of the “almost spherical and moonless” Mars is extremely long (estimated to be about 170,000 years). Currently, the orientation of Mars’ North celestial pole is RA 21h 10m 42s. Since the ecliptic plane of Mars is almost the same as that of Earth’s, the Zodiac constellations are virtually identical. However, the orbital positions of the solstices and equinoxes of Mars are very different from Earth’s. For instance, the autumnal equinox of Mars is situated among the stars of the constellation Taurus and its summer solstice is between Aquarius and Pisces.

Because “precession” is an angular measure through which a planet must rotate, it represents a specific time difference that depends on the planet’s absolute period of rotation on its axis. This would bring us to your question about planets showing perhaps a similar relationship between a sidereal and tropical day.

If the axis of the Earth changes its orientation in space by 1° in roughly 70 years, it would be reasonable to propose that over a period of several hundred years

a) either the axis of Mars changes its orientation relative to the Zodiac by approximately the same amount and therefore relatively little with respect to the orientation of Earth’s axis

b) or the axis of Earth changes its orientation significantly relative to the orientation of the axis of Mars

While Brahe and Kepler recorded their detailed observations of the orbital motion of the planet Mars, it was Huygens who charted on November 28th 1659 its surface markings. But it remains to be seen, if these and other historic records can be used to adequately determine whether or not the orientation of the axis of Mars has noticeably changed with respect to the position of Earth’s vernal equinox.

By comparing these phenomena, which occur under the same conditions and in the same place where Time is being considered, it is however quite probable to find unstudied evidence. The crux of the matter is Time itself -- the ultimate scientific challenge in the gross material world in which life is an evolutionary process that goes against the direction of probability.

Uwe Homann

_____________________________________________________

August 28, 2005

Thank you very very much for your detailed and thoughtful reply. You've addressed my concerns in full by explaining that the precession rates of other planets are calculated based on assumptions, rather than on hard observations. The observable facts about the earth not wobbling relative to the moon and venus but wobbling relative to the background stars then become, in my opinion, extremely strong evidence for your position.

It's frightening to me how the "mainstream scientific community" gets so caught up in its paradigms and what it has been taught in school that it loses track of the fact that science moves from observation to theory rather than from theory to manufactured observation. I'm glad to know, however, that there are scientists such as yourselves carrying the torch of good science.

Thanks again for your very thorough and thoughtful answer.

Sincerely,
A. I.