Searching Evidence: Kepler’s Trigons and Events in the Holocene.

This is an updated version of an earlier post to include important additions:

Ancient texts that mention events in prehistoric times, often linked such events of ‘world fire or flood’ with astronomical phenomena. A recent (2005) paper by M. A. van der Sluijs, ‘A Possible Babylonian Precursor to the Theory of Ecpyrōsis’, touches on the astronomical factor in the ancient texts.

A curious piece from the paper is a quote from a Babylonian text, the ‘Babyloniaca’ attributed to the Babylonian priest Berossus (third century BCE), that says, quote: “Berossus … affirms that the whole issue is brought about by the course of the planets”. It refers to the ‘Great Year’, and relates to planetary alignments that were studied by Johannes Kepler and known as Kepler’s Trigon. The major planets are Jupiter and Saturn, and a Great Conjunction is a conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn.

An extract from another Babylonian epic text, one version from said paper reads thus: “– I rose up from my dwelling, and the control of heaven and earth was undone. The very heavens I made to tremble, the positions of the stars of heaven changed, and I did not return them to their places. –” A change in the ‘position of the stars of heaven’ can be a shift in the orientation of the Earth axis. An Obliquity change.

Earlier studies of evidence had provided very near dates to events as they were discerned from the megalithic calendars, together with various proxies that appear to corroborate both dates and events. Searching these dates in ‘Solar System Live’, an on-line software giving planetary positions for specific dates, has resulted in some interesting very near planetary alignment connected to the dates. The dates are too near for simple coincidence. The planets are Saturn and Jupiter, in line with Earth and the Sun, in S J E S order. However such conjunctions are frequent, so the relevance of these specific conjunctions to the prehistoric events remains an enigma.

Update 1: In attached picture, bottom graph, five events corresponding to five consecutive Eddy Cycle roots are indicated. A sixth has since been identified. Circa late 1300bce historically corresponds to the start of the period of civilisation collapse in the Eastern Mediterranean and Aegean.

Update 2: Background: An Earth obliquity change, from a tentative study, can possibly arise if a torque is imposed on the rotating Earth from external sources. Gravitational forces from planetary alignment on an oblate Earth may be such a source. In such a case the gravitational effect of the moon may be a substantial addition, but the software does not indicate the moon’s position. However other sources can provide additional insight.

A recent study of the Biblical Flood as found from the earliest Akkadian sources has provided a clear indicator. The study appears in the book Wasserman, Nathan (2020). The Flood : The Akkadian Sources. A New Edition, Commentary, and a Literary Discussion. Leuven – Paris – Bristol, CT: Peeters.  In a commentary it was said that “The date of the Flood was set at the end of the lunar month, on the darkest night of the month when the moon is invisible.” This important observation indicates that the moon was also in-line with the sun and planets. Other important indicators are also to be found in this study. The ‘Flood’ which is referred to as ‘The Flood from the West’ is found in many flood myth, except as noted, in Egypt. This harks back to Herodotus and his discourses with the Egyptian priests, where it is said ” The sun, however, had within this period of time, on four several occasions, moved from his wonted course, twice rising where he now sets, and twice setting where he now rises. Egypt was in no degree affected by these changes; the productions of the land, and of the river, remained the same; nor was there anything unusual either in the diseases or the deaths.” Two observations here: a movement of the sun’s rising and setting points, which the megalithic calendars clearly indicate in their dimensions. And that Egypt was not effected by a Flood from the West; a geological possibility.

12 thoughts on “Searching Evidence: Kepler’s Trigons and Events in the Holocene.

Add yours

  1. “Gravitational forces from planetary alignment on an oblate Earth” — these are negligible and cannot cause change of Earth’s rotation axis… Forces of all planets onto Earth’s oblate shape are well below 1% of forces due to Sun and Moon, which cause the well known slow precession of equinoxes, as they try to pull Earth’s equatorial bulge to the ecliptic plane, which torque on the rotating body of Earth causes it to precess instead of pulling it to that plane… (If it could ever pull Earth’s equatorial bulge to the ecliptic plane, it would already be there after those billions of years…)

    Obliquity cannot change instantly… Earth is a gyroscope and there is tremenduous energy stored in that gyroscope, and tremenduous energy would be required to change it’s axis vector, which is why the precession of equinoxes is so slow…

    About planet-wide flood – where did that water go ? The water cannot disappear from the planet… There may have been some regional flood, or some land could submerge into sea, but there could not be any planet-wide flood, since the water would have stayed here until today at those levels… If Antarctic and Greenland both melted, the oceans would rise by some 60 meters… But these glaciers are there for some 1-2 million years at least…

    Like

  2. In reply to P.A. Semi, The crux of the matter here is, quote ” — tremenduous energy would be required to change it’s axis vector–“.

    Like in the classic ‘precessing spinning top’ in dynamics, the momentum axis vector is the axis about which the rotating object precesses. It is not the instantaneous axis of rotation. When the two axes do not coincide there is precession. When they coincide there is no precession.

    Therefore, as evident in the classic spinning top, small impulses can cause abrupt tilt changes, without effecting the momentum vector. The energy involved may be quite small.

    Such an event can cause tsunamis that may be disastrous to coastal and low lying regions.
    See
    https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/08/12/searching-evidence-deaths-tsunamis-and-earth-dynamics/
    https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2018/08/12/searching-evidence-4-prehistoric-mass-burials/
    The biblical conundrum of the source of water, and where it went, does not arise.

    Like

  3. Angular Momentum Vector is almost same as the rotational axis on an almost-spherical body and it is a conserved property, sum of angular momentum vectors in a closed system is constant, unless some energy is added to the system…

    The “Flood” could have been a Tsunami… Tsunami does not last 40 days… What regards the biblical text, it is a prophecy and parable, not a real history…

    About megalithic structures encoding solstice – I would rather believe that England shifted elsewhere, than that the Earth’s axis has tilted… It’s similar as 150-year old sea-level marks somewhere at New Zealand little above current sea level – what those describing them do not consider is, that that Island, on which there is that sea-level mark, could have risen by a meter, instead of global sea-level dropping…

    About “Dzhanibekov effect” – Earth does not have three different moments of inertia, it’s 2nd and 3rd are (almost) same…

    About “stability over any length of period” – planet positions do not significantly differ, from what we experienced in last cca 100 years regularly… Any alignment or non-alignment of Neptune and Uranus makes a negligible difference, and effects due to Jupiter, Venus and Saturn are quite regular and we experienced most of their alignment possibilities during last 100 years…

    Once I calculated the Chandler wobble caused by planets affecting asymmetries of Earth surface… (Himalayas are counter-balanced by Andes, but Africa is not counterbalanced by Pacific, and the poles are more flat than equator).
    http://semi.gurroa.cz/Chandler/Chandler.html
    There is section “Appendix A – Numeric estimates”…

    On ideal sphere there is no torque by external forces, since they pull on all sides same, and only the pull on surface irregularities cause torque…

    Earth’s moment of inertia I=9.718e37 kg m2, angular momentum L=7.087e33 kg m2/s, displacing that vector by 0.2 mili-arcsec (or 38 meters at surface) is ΔL=4.317e28 kg m2/s, which requires torque 1.45e21 Nm applied for 50 years, which is cca the torque due to tides, mainly by Moon and Sun… Average torque on surface irregularities is 8.034e20 Nm… But planet-only torque on surface irregularities is maximum cca 3.4e20 Nm during last 150 years, and it would not be twice that much in all history, unless there is another planet?, average is 1.405e20 Nm…
    (I’m not exactly sure about these numbers, it seems too large compared to Sun+Moon’s effect? I remember it being 100x smaller and it is only 6x smaller?? It’s long since I calculated that…)

    You claim 10° displacement of axis, which is 1.8e8 (180 million) times the Chandler wobble…

    A conclusion – we do observe effects of Sun,Moon and planets on Earth’s axis, and it makes differences about few tens of metres (or almost mili-arcsec) per century in rotation axis relative to Earth, and it causes very slow precession (cca 26000 years) of rotation axis relative to stars…
    (The Chandler wobble is probably that exchange of momentum between multiple axis of innertia of Dzhanibekov effect? I’ll need to re-calculate and update my page some time again, thank you to point me on that…)

    Like

  4. In reply to P A Semi’s points:
    During a Kepler Trigon, and near a solstice, gravitational forces have a distorting effect on Ix, Iy, becoming unequal, and both not equal to Iz. The effect is an imposed torque. Would it change things? We do not know, but the evidence is that it does.

    Flood stories (many) vary in days. Tsunami is short duration, but flood inundation last variously according to place. The biblical may be only one instance. The Sumerian is more real. Second point: it was not singular instances, but repeats. There is enough evidence.

    Re megalithic structures and solstice determination. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIhT65GdjgI&t=12s Belief serves for nothing; evidence does. This structure is not by chance, and works superbly. It is the last of a long series of calendars, all with a different earth tilt; only this one records an alteration in its structure to tilt after 2345bce.

    About “Dzhanibekov effect”. Note in this example that the obliquity shift is 180degrees, and unstable, so keeps repeating. Yet angular momentum is conserved at all times. The shape in this case is unchanging. Earth’s shape can change/distort temporarily under gravitational torque. The change is small under lunar gravity (land and sea tides). But what happens when planets and moon collaborate? Again, the evidence is that something happens (the ancients refer to it as a declination of the heavens, or that the control of the heavens was undone. Now we have the evidence to understand what they meant).

    Like

  5. Another numerical estimate:
    Planets however well aligned only ADD, they do not multiply…
    Earth mass is 5.97e24 kg, but it is almost sphere, so the pull on this side is same as pull on that side… Only the surface asymmetry counts. I calculated surface asymmetry adding together as if it was a one mass point 4.8e19 kg at radius distance 6.351e6 m from center… It could be 1000x different, probably not more… Total mass of all surface asymmetry from ideal sphere is cca 2.54e22 kg, about 500x bigger, about 0.5% of Earth mass, but most of it is distributed symmetrically about axis…
    (Now ignoring, that if the planet pulls surface asymmetry at morning onto one side, then on evening it pulls it almost same on opposite side, but as the distance to the planet or Moon may change from morning to evening, those pulls are not same… Also, as it pulls equatorial bulge this way on left side, pulls it opposite way on right side, and when it adds, only the component toward ecliptic rests…)

    Key to the table:
    D= closest distance at planet’s perihelium and then Earth’s closest distance to the planet, it should be >95% of maximum impact possible
    M=Planet Mass, Fg(E) is gravity force onto whole Earth, which only changes orbital parameters and orbital angular momentum, Fg(A) is gravity force onto that surface asymmetry of 2.54e22 kg, Ft is surface tidal force per kilogram of mass, Ft(A) is maximum surface tidal force onto that whole asymmetry…

    Moo: D=3.684E8 m, M=7.346E22 kg, Fg(E)=2.158E20 N, Fg(A)=9.178E17 N, Ft=1.25E-6 N/kg, Ft(A)=3.175E16 N
    Sun: D=1.471E11 m, M=1.989E30 kg, Fg(E)=3.663E22 N, Fg(A)=1.558E20 N, Ft=5.313E-7 N/kg, Ft(A)=1.35E16 N
    Jup: D=5.913E11 m, M=1.899E27 kg, Fg(E)=2.165E18 N, Fg(A)=9.205E15 N, Ft=7.81E-12 N/kg, Ft(A)=1.984E11 N
    Ven: D=3.976E10 m, M=4.868E24 kg, Fg(E)=1.227E18 N, Fg(A)=5.219E15 N, Ft=6.585E-11 N/kg, Ft(A)=1.672E12 N
    Sat: D=1.202E12 m, M=5.685E26 kg, Fg(E)=1.57E17 N, Fg(A)=6.675E14 N, Ft=2.787E-13 N/kg, Ft(A)=7.079E9 N
    Mar: D=6.328E10 m, M=6.417E23 kg, Fg(E)=6.387E16 N, Fg(A)=2.716E14 N, Ft=2.153E-12 N/kg, Ft(A)=5.47E10 N
    Mer: D=8.407E10 m, M=3.301E23 kg, Fg(E)=1.862E16 N, Fg(A)=7.918E13 N, Ft=4.725E-13 N/kg, Ft(A)=1.2E10 N
    Ura: D=2.587E12 m, M=8.682E25 kg, Fg(E)=5.172E15 N, Fg(A)=2.2E13 N, Ft=4.266E-15 N/kg, Ft(A)=1.084E8 N
    Nep: D=4.313E12 m, M=1.024E26 kg, Fg(E)=2.195E15 N, Fg(A)=9.336E12 N, Ft=1.086E-15 N/kg, Ft(A)=2.758E7 N
    Plu: D=4.292E12 m, M=1.464E22 kg, Fg(E)=3.168E11 N, Fg(A)=1.347E9 N, Ft=1.575E-19 N/kg, Ft(A)=4001 N

    A conclusion: tidal force from Moon at maximum about 2x that of Sun, tidal force due to planets is cca 7000x smaller than due to Sun…
    Gravity force biggest from Sun, 100x less than Sun is Moon, 100x less than Moon is Jupiter and Venus, 10x less than Jupiter is Saturn and Mars, 60x less than Saturn is Uranus, 4x less than Uranus is Neptune… However the planets add, they are no more than 2% of Moon’s gravity here…

    Gravity force causes change of orbital trajectory vector and that causes opposite centrifugal acceleration, which exactly balances it at center of Earth, so we do not feel Sun or Moon gravity in Earth’s accelerating frame directly… But on near side toward the Moon or Sun or a planet, the attraction force is bigger and on far side it is smaller, and this difference is not balanced by centrifugal acceleration, which is everywhere same, and this difference is the tidal force… (a heretic explanation, I know…)
    We orbit Sun, Moon and all planets at once… But contribution from planets to orbital trajectory relative to Sun’s contribution is negligible… Moon orbits Sun, Earth (2x less) and all planets (10000x less) at once…

    Earth’s spin omega 7.292e-5 rad/s, mass 5.972e24 kg, yields momentum I = 2mr^2/5 = 9.718e37 kg m^2, angular momentum L = I * omega = 7.087e33 kg m^2/s .
    Tidal force due to Sun and Moon = 1.7913E-6 N/kg, asymmetry of tidal bulge and continents=2.54e22 kg at 6.351e6 m from center, then torque due to tides is at most 2.889e23 N m if it was perpendicular, but is 1.15e23 N m at 23.5° inclination (1 Newton metre == 1 kg m^2 / s^2 == 1 Joule)
    To turn that angular momentum vector 1° aside requires 1.237e32 joules seconds, so it would take 34 years (1.07e9 s) due to tides to turn it by 1° ? As it once precesses about 23.5° at 26000 years, it turns by 1° in 176 years ? (not 72 years, but 26000/(23.5*2*pi) years…??), so I get it 5x faster in my estimate, probably since the tides are not always at maximum and Moon is not on ecliptic… But it shows, that tides of Sun and Moon explain turning angular momentum vector in precession and the tidal contribution of all planets is 7000x smaller than Sun and Moon, or whatever interpretation they are at most 100x weaker…

    Like

  6. As you pointed me also to the article on Tallbloke’s Talkshop https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/12/24/dodwells-surprising-study-of-the-obliquity-of-the-ecliptic/ , I’ve missed it in 2014, it was on Christmas…
    The abrupt change in obliquity could have been possibly due to some impact (but that would have to be into the ocean? Otherwise the dust cloud would “terminate” us same as dinosaurs), but absolutely not due to any superposition of planets…
    Otherwise – the pyramids needed not be built to the northern direction… (Same as W.DC square is exactly oriented by corner to North, but Mall is 1° off from due East direction and points probably to Olympus and Constantinople…?)

    To instantly turn the Earth axis by 10° (difference of AM = 1.235e33 Joules seconds?) with a best hit (perpendicular at pole, all energy only to change axis) by an object at speed 50km/s would require it’s mass 3.89e21 kg, about 1/20 of Moon’s mass or 5x weight of whole Africa to 10km depth, or 2.7x total mass of all oceans 1.4e21 kg…? But applying 1.235e33 Joules at once would rather crush the Earth crust… All nuclear tests together had 2.2e18 J, of this Tsar Bomba was 2.1e17 J. That impact would have to be 5.6e14 x (or 560 million million times) stronger than all nuclear tests perpetrated by humanity so far…
    Chicxulub impact that wiped off dinosaurs is estimated at most 5.8e25 Joules ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater#Impact_specifics ), but for this 10° axis shift it requires it to be yet 20 million times stronger…?
    That is not real… I didn’t even think it’s so unreal, before calculating it here…

    To turn the rotation axis by 180° (opposite rotation) is 2x angular momentum or 1.4e34 Joules…)

    “Tennis racket theorem” (or Dzhanibekov effect) is not about throwing spinning rocket (or gyroscope), but that if you throw it and apply torque on one axis, part of it is exchanged as a spin about another axis, as I understand it…

    How does that video from Mnajdra stone calendar prove 10° change in obliquity? As I watched it, it rather seems to confirm current obliquity already then…

    Like

  7. ((A second part of that calculation is missing ? Retrying abbreviated…))

    The abrupt change in obliquity could have been possibly due to some impact (but that would have to be into the ocean? Otherwise the dust cloud would “terminate” us same as dinosaurs), but absolutely not due to any superposition of known planets… (maybe some heavy planet, that gets nearby only once in X thousand years???)

    To instantly turn the Earth axis by 10° (difference of AM = 1.235e33 Joules seconds?) with a best hit (perpendicular at pole, all energy only to change axis) by an object at speed 50km/s would require it’s mass 3.89e21 kg, about 1/20 of Moon’s mass or 5x weight of whole Africa to 10km depth, or 2.7x total mass of all oceans 1.4e21 kg…? But applying 1.235e33 Joules at once would rather crush the Earth… All our nuclear tests together had 2.2e18 J energy, of this Tsar Bomba was 2.1e17 J. That impact would have to be 5.6e14 x (or 560 million million times) stronger than all nuclear tests perpetrated by humanity so far…

    Chicxulub impact that wiped off dinosaurs is estimated at most 5.8e25 Joules ( wiki/Chicxulub_crater#Impact_specifics ), but for this 10° axis shift it is required to be yet 20 million times stronger…?

    That is not real… I didn’t even think it’s so unreal, before calculating it here… (Did I make some error?)

    To turn the rotation axis by 180° (opposite rotation) is 2x angular momentum or 1.4e34 Joules seconds…)

    “Tennis racket theorem” (or Dzhanibekov effect) is not about throwing spinning rocket (or gyroscope), but that if you throw it and apply torque on one axis, part of it is exchanged as a spin about another axis, as I understand it…

    How does that video from Mnajdra stone calendar prove 10° change in obliquity?
    As I watched it, it is nice, but it rather seems to confirm current obliquity already then…

    Like

  8. Reply to PA Semi:
    See this, and observe very carefully (you are missing the whole point): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x5UiwEEvpQ

    Event sequence: 1 – object is given angular momentum at start. 2 – it rotates in free space. 3 – obliquity change of 180degree; NO toques imposed. Angular momentum is conserved; it is still rotating in same direction as before – no momentum vector change, but body orientation changed. No energy input of output. 4 – system as-is unstable, as soon as precession starts, object flips orientation again, and again. No energy exchange with anything.

    Comments: lengthy calculations unnecessary. There is no change in earth momentum vector (that precession is long time-wise is immaterial). As the instantaneous rotation axis moves so does the earth crust, so pyramids maintain orientation to geographic north – whatever the obliquity change.
    Re chicxulub: impacts are small inputs of energy, likely of little or no effect. However see ‘THOUGHTS ON THE K-T EVENT’ here http://users.neo.registeredsite.com/6/9/1/18560196/assets/NCGTJV7N3.pdf Speculation is not evidence.

    Re Mnajdra see https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/mnajdra-south-calendar-design/ The sunrise point on horizon equinox to solstice moves through an angle depending on site latitude. Like most other calendars before Mnajdra was built to an angle of ~18degrees. But it had to be converted to an angle of ~36 degrees by extending the solstice markers. None of this is pure chance.

    Like

  9. That video with Dzhanibekov effet is interesting, but it requires an object with 3 different moments of inertia, and part of the angular momentum is required for the turn around another axis and it is returned to the main spin again.
    If you could play that video in slow motion, it is visible, that during turns the main spin significantly slows down… The angular momentum for the turning does not come from nothing…

    The object with which he tried that is relatively solid and durable and the stress of slow-down and change of direction of motion of it’s individual parts are relatively very small compared to it’s hardness… But in case of Earth, the slow-down and change of direction of movement of individual parts would produce substantial deformative stress… Consider, that centrifugal acceleration due to Earth spin subtracts from gravity toward Earth (on equator you weight less than on pole, and also while moving east or west you weight different), and thus slowing spin to less than half and changing it’s direction abruptly would have some effect on local gravity direction by some orders of magnitude bigger than known earthquakes (by my estimate or guess, I did not calculate that yet)…
    Also, the Earth does not rotate in free inertial space, it is pulled by Solar and Lunar gravity…

    There are two different things – the angular momentum vector of the Earth inclined by 23.5° to ecliptic, which is called “Obliquity”, and turning it requires external energy to apply the torque, which is due to tides pulling equatorial bulge to the ecliptic and it manifests as a precession of axis instead of decreasing that obliquity.

    Then there is another thing, which is position of the Earth body relative to that angular momentum. Earth has one principal moment of inertia, north-south axis Z with equatorial bulge asymmetry, but second and third moment of inertia are almost same axis X and Y and they differ only by Africa not balanced by Pacific, but that is 500x smaller difference than equatorial bulge. That can cause a partial Dzhanibekov effect of exchanging angular momentum between the axises, and we really do observe it as a Chandler wobble, and it’s also caused or modulated most probably by tides…
    It has magnitude of mili-arcsec or tens of metres on the surface of Earth…

    (for that Dzhanibekov effect – the difference between second and third axis turning applies to change first axis omega… his object was highly asymmetrical… here it is just Africa-Pacific turning whole planet…)
    I1 ω’1 = (I2 – I3) ω2 ω3
    In the case of Earth, (I2-I3) is very small, and both ω2 and ω3 are very very small… Earth rotates around the first axis and that is stable…

    About “Mnajdra south calendar design” – you could mis-interpret, what and how it was used before rebuilding…?
    Also, how is 58° Earth tilt? (If the difference was vertical and it is on island, that island or rock below the site could move?)
    It is not clear, that the older part of the building was also used as a calendar same way as the newer part, as there is one similar temple just beside turned different direction, i.e. not serving as a solar calendar at all… They could only later realize the calendar function and adapt one of the temples?

    Like

  10. Reply to PA Semi:
    Para1: Observe carefully. The object in video changed both orientation and direction of rotation. Seen as a mass its angular momentum was conserved. There is no energy spent – or gained-. For that object Ix not= Iy not= Iz. For earth Ix ~= Iy, so stable; but distorting earth may cause reorientation (obliquity change).

    Para3: The angular momentum vector of the earth is the axis of precession. Example: take a spinner, give it an initial angular momentum in vertical state. It begins to precess, but the precession is about the initial vertical axis that it started with, thereby conserving ang-momentum vector. The instantaneous orientation is only a transitory state. Integrate over many precession cycles —- .

    Para5 Mnajdra: Long story (you speculate due to lack of information). Earliest calendars predate 5200bce; there is a very long history of development. All followed sunrise at horizon to tell the time of year. The technique used evolved and Mnajdra is a final state for that era (yet as capable as NASA to predict the solstice day and hour – which tells some about our own modern day pretensions). Actually the earliest calendars were easier to understand (mind you, after my having spent years/decades trying to find their real use. My two books on the matter are the result of >35yrs of searching). Intention of sites as calendars mainly for agrarian use was evident all through the millennia. The 18degree equinox to solstice is equal to obliquity of about 14.5deg at lat35.8deg. The 29.5 is for today’s obliquity. Note the changes in axial orientation is due to ‘micro-plate tectonic rotations. Meaning there have been great geological disasters.

    See for early type https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2017/02/24/blog-post-title/
    Also https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/the-calendars-of-megalithic-malta/
    https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2017/04/24/the-two-queens/
    Don’t mean to advertise, but it was the holistic approach that finally spilled the ancient secrets. (You can read the introductions at Amazon).

    Like

  11. Para1: Total Angular Momentum in isolated system is always conserved. That object slowed rotation about primary axis, while it was rotating about secondary axis…
    About “distorting shape of Earth” — adding another continent-size mass could change it a little, not much…

    Para3: The Angular Momentum vector is at the axis of rotation, not at the axis of precession… L = I . ω where ω is momentaneous rotation vector… It can be split about multiple axes: L = I1 . ω1 + I2 . ω2 + I3 . ω3 and the vector sum must be conserved… Flipping that object involves rise of ω2 and/or ω3, so that ω1 must decrease, then stopping the flip is reverse, growing ω1…
    It is momentaneous sum of all particles’ angular momentum about some center (axis?) of rotation ( L = r x mv ), where all L,r,v,ω are vectors, assuming mass m does not change… Famous example – skating and rotating and pulling hands inside speeds up rotation, since vector r of hands shrinks, so the velocity vector v must grow to maintain conserved momentum…

    Turning that Angular Momentum vector in precession changes that vector and it requires external force applied, which is by tides from Sun, Moon and planets (less than 1%)… If there was no external force, there would be no precession…

    Spin-toy precesses about vertical axis by gravity force, even if you start it inclined… (I don’t have any here now to verify…) If it was spinning perfectly vertical, there is no precession, but as it slows occasionally and inclines to some side, the gravity pulls it more to that side, which makes torque and turns the axis of rotation…
    (I am not sure at this moment, but I think Earth precesses around axis of ecliptic, because there is the tidal bulge pulled by other bodies…)

    Modifying the gravity or the force causing the torque would modify the rate of precession, so the Earth’s precession is not continuously same, but vibrates little, but the Sun, Moon and planets soon average out all anomalies.

    Para5 – You also speculate due to lack of information… Is it there written, that it was a solar calendar before rebuilding? Was the entrance door already at present place, when the back wall was there? Maybe you project your contemporaneous knowledge onto ancients too much…?

    About geological disasters – Italy is traveling north, raising Alps mountains, same as India traveling north is raising Himalayas… I’m not sure about the rate of that movement and if it could change… There has been some volcanic explosion on some of the Mediterranean islands around 1400BC, so some of those islands could have shift few meters more…?

    Years of study are not an Argument… I’ve been exploring planetary dynamics and gravity for 14 years… I think I suceeded in refuting General Relativity by a better explanation of Gravity and they have been peddling that GR nonsense for 100 years… Count of Years is not an Argument…

    What I mean – the Eddy cycle and others involving climate and solar activity is interesting… Atmosphere is quite volatile and moving it may be posible…(?) Just that turning obliquity is unreal, there is too much inertial energy stored in that gyroscope…

    Like

  12. Reply to PA Semi
    On dynamics there is fundamental disagreement, getting too long for this site, and getting nowhere. Best leave matter there.
    On geological disasters, there is plenty of new info; suggested key words ‘micro-plate tectonic rotations’.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: