Last Summer I Noticed The Sun Was Setting 30 to 40 Degrees Off From It's Usual Place

Where I live it sets the very same as it has. Only one sun and this planet, so I think you are mistaken.

Just a few minor adjustments.. right..?



[link to en.wikipedia.org]
[snip]

The celestial poles do not remain permanently fixed against the background of the stars. Because of a phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes, the poles trace out circles on the celestial sphere, with a period of about 25,700 years. The Earth's axis is also subject to other complex motions which cause the celestial poles to shift slightly over cycles of varying lengths; see nutation, polar motion and axial tilt.

The north celestial pole currently is within a degree of the bright star Polaris (named from the Latin stella polaris, meaning "pole star"). This makes Polaris useful for navigation in the northern hemisphere: not only is it always above the north point of the horizon, but its altitude angle is always (nearly) equal to the observer's geographic latitude. Polaris can, of course, only be seen from locations in the northern hemisphere.

Polaris is near the celestial pole for only a small fraction of the 25,700-year precession cycle. It will remain a good approximation for about 1,000 years, by which time the pole will have moved to be closer to Alrai (Gamma Cephei). In about 5,500 years, the pole will have moved near the position of the star Alderamin (Alpha Cephei), and in 12,000 years, Vega (Alpha Lyrae) will become our north star, but it will be about six degrees from the true north celestial pole.

At least you're polite about it!

Some others like to throw in "idiot" and "ignorant" every other word.

No need for all that.

Wrong. The axis is always in flux. Read a book.

And again avoiding to answer the question with an alleged scientific counter question.


.

What are you avoiding, fritz..?
Nevermind.. I already know.. hehehe.

Dear OP

when you noticed since last summer, that the sun is off - please explain how the Venus transit in June occured exact as calculated back in the early 19-hundreds.


.

The theory that is a joy to debunk, apparently...



[link to library.thinkquest.org]

[snip...way less than 50%]

Nemesis, the Sun's companion star, 1983-present

Suppose our Sun was not alone but had a companion star. Suppose that this companion star moved in an elliptical orbit, its
solar distance varying between 90,000 AU (1.4 light years) and 20,000 AU, with a period of 30 million years. Also suppose
this star is dark or at least very faint, and because of that we haven't noticed it yet.

This would mean that once every 30 million years that hypothetical companion star of the Sun would pass through the Oort
cloud (a hypothetical cloud of proto-comets at a great distance from the Sun). During such a passage, the proto-comets in the
Oort cloud would be stirred around. Some tens of thousands of years later, here on Earth we would notice a dramatic increase
in the the number of comets passing the inner solar system. If the number of comets increases dramatically, so does the risk of
the Earth colliding with the nucleus of one of those comets.

When examining the Earth's geological record, it appears that about once every 30 million years a mass extinction of life on
Earth has occurred. The most well-known of those mass events is, of course, the dinosaur extinction some 65 million years
ago. The theory predicts there will be another mass extinction in 15 million years.

This hypothetical "death companion" of the Sun was suggested in 1985 by Daniel P. Whitmire and John J. Matese of the
University of Southern Lousiana. It has even received a name, Nemesis. One awkward fact of the Nemesis hypothesis is that
there is no evidence whatever of a companion star of the Sun.

It need not be very bright or very massive. A star much smaller
and dimmer than the Sun would suffice, even if it was a brown or a black dwarf (a planet-like body insufficiently massive to
start "burning hydrogen" like a star). It is possible that this star already exists in one of the catalogues of dim stars without
anyone having noted something peculiar, namely the enormous apparent motion of that star against the background of more
distant stars (i.e., its parallax). If Nemesis should be found, few will doubt that it is the primary cause of periodic mass
extinctions on Earth.

In 1987, Whitmire and Matese suggested a tenth planet at 80 AU with a period of 700 years and an inclination of perhaps 45°,
as an alternative to their "Nemesis" hypothesis. However, according to Eugene M. Shoemaker, this planet could not have
caused those meteor showers that Whitmire and Matese suggested.

Nemesis is also a notion of mythical power. If an anthropologist of a previous generation had heard such a story from his
informants, the resulting scholary tome would doubtless use words like 'primitive' or 'pre-scientific.' Consider this story:

There is another Sun in the sky, a Demon Sun we cannot see. Long ago, even before great grandmother's
time, the Demon Sun attacked our Sun. Comets fell, and a terrible winter overtook the Earth. Almost all life
was destroyed. The Demon Sun has attacked many times before. It will attack again.

This is why some scientists thought this theory was a joke when they first heard of it - an invisible Sun attacking the Earth with
comets sounds like delusion or myth. It deserves an additional dollop of skepticism for that reason: we are always in danger of
deceiving ourselves. But even if the theory is speculative, it's serious and respectable, because its main idea is testable: you
find the star and examine its properties.

However, the existence of Nemesis is not very likely. The Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) examined the entire sky in
the far infrared (IR) spectrum.

However, it did not find any evidence of a star that would fit the description of "Nemesis."

I know about precession. Precession is too subtle to cause the sun to appear to rise/set 30 - 40 degrees from where it did on a particular day a few years ago.

Those days are coming to an end. People have been talking about things being out of place big time for a couple of years big time. Even more than previous years. There are more people noticing the changes than there are shills on this site. They are outnumbered now and have lost all credibility lately. We know whom most of them are. They change their avatars now and jump back and forth. They still write the same.

Astro and his bullshit trip this last time around " I think it out of place " Stupid Phyops Game.

All they have ever done is try really hard to either convince or humiliate or confuse. Chairs and houses don't move nor does the Sun only with the seasons. I know what windows the sun shines in when its summer. and which ones in the winter.

I am actually thinking that the changes they want to make to the internet and everybody having to use their real names at sites would be a good thing. We could hunt them all down that way. LOL. Throw eggs at them. Rotten apples cause thats exactely what they are. Like Bush a bunch of Rotten Apples. Remember...? The shills got their playbook from Bush. Bunch of rotten bastards.

OP is correct!The sun is rising WAY Southwest and setting West which makes no sense unless we are wobbling every 24 hours.I have lived in the same house for 20 years and I have sun coming in in places that have been dark before.I have gardens all around and a deck on the East side and one of my gardens previously shady in the late afternoon is now sunny as the sun has been setting WAY Northwest in the Summer.Now the interesting thing is that when I get my compass out North is about 20 degrees off to the East of where it was 20 years ago.I cannot wrap my brain around it however hard I try!And then of course there is the smiling moon....

But... you SAID the axis is not shifting in your rebuttal.
The wobble is variable and proven... the axis is hardly static.
Nor is our solar system... nor is the galaxy.. nor is the universe.

We are discussing anomalies and the discernible effects of this wobble.
The mass distribution of the planet is also in flux.

If you alter the distribution of mass on a spinning object.. what happens..?

My initial point was that the reason the airport runways at the airport in Florida needed to be renumbered was due to the MAGNETIC poles moving, not due to any axial shifting.

The number 26,000 (you mentioned 25,700) keeps coming up in cycles on our earth. Something cycle like that should indicate a repeating action of some sort-- perhaps an orbit. Isn't that one of the time sequences associated with Nibiru?

That shows a lack of analytical skill on your part.

I believe that is correct.
I am not that familiar with the Niburu prophecies, per se.
I try to stick to known science.. for obvious reasons.

I have been accused of being a nib-tard..zeta-tard [had to google that one].. or just an idiot.

My initial questioning of the status quo attracted much
ridicule.. strengthening my desire to find out what is
really happening.. and why they were so abusive to me.
I guess they thought I would fade away under scrutiny..

It merely pissed me off.

it is noticed by more and more people...
ignore the shills...

same at my office and house..started noticing last year but this year is crazy change!!!

The 26,000 cycle came up in a youtube clip I listened to from the astrophysicist Dr. Paul LaViollette. I forget what he was discussing about it, but it also comes up in non-mythological discussions on Niburu.

The following site looks like a good forum for discussions of Nibiru. I'm just reading it as a guest for the moment.

[link to planetxtownhall.com]

Oh please. Get over it. I and 4 or 5 others have said the same thing. You're debunking nothing and you look like a clown.

And the credibility of your opinion is based on what?

That's your answer to my question? That 4 or 5 others have said the same dumb thing?

Very elaborate answer.


.

And the credibility of your opinion is based on what?


.

The water from melting ice is migrating to center from the poles because of centrifugal force...
This is causing Earth's wobble to become variable and erratic.
Thanks to the stabilizing forces of the sun and moon, it is on and off with the seasons.

This is what they don't want you to know.

There are other factors... migrating magma deep in the earth, for instance.
Seawater salt composition and thermohaline function, as well.

Hi Waterbug

there are some flaws in your chain of thought.

The angular rotation of Earth is the same at any point on Earth.
But is the rotational velocity the same at any point on Earth?
No - it is minimum at the poles (0 km/h) and maximum at the equator (about 1670 km/h).
Since the centrifugal force is dependent on the velocity, most likely the melting water will distribute evenly.
No change in mass contribution - no change to Earth rotational axis.

But let's assume, the melting water will migrate to the equator.
This will increase the mass at the equatorial bulge.
More mass at the equator = more robust rotation = a shift in Earth axis even less likely.

And another question is:
There is water on Earth since hundreds of million years.
If the melting water is migrationg to the Equator, why didn't the rest of the water do so?

And the rest of your hypothesis?
Migrating magma, seawater salt composition, thermohaline function - is this something new since some years or does this happen to Earth since billions of years?

I think the latter - and no signs of a change in Earth rotational axis in history.

Remember the spin tops of your childhood? Did you ever try to tip over a rotating spin top?


.

The Earth is not a perfect globe..
It has variable mass distribution, already.
Adding or subtracting mass from any area will cause wobble variation.

Adding freshwater to saltwater changes the dynamics and weight of the seawater.

Assuming I am correct... the water doesn't immediately appear at the equatorial bulge.
There are reports of islands disappearing, extreme high tides and abnormal flooding.
This water is coming from somewhere and isn't locale specific, nor is it evenly distributed due to land mass placement.
When it does reach the equator.. the wobble certainly re-stabilizes to normal parameters.
However... during the period of migration.. the wobble is variable.
So.. we have melt... water migration... then freezing..
Variability.
The anomalies are sporadic, variable at different locations and different times.

We also have to account for ocean sea bed elevation changes.
Something is pushing the sea bed upwards in places, possibly plate movement,
migrating magma and/or subduction related.
This also contributes to mass redistribution.

We also must account for the voids caused by drilling and removing oil.
The voids are typically filled with water.
Water and oil have different properties, weight and fluid dynamics.

Then we have the migration of magma to consider.
These processes are not static nor are they predictable.

We also have slight variations in orbital speed.
So... we'll take the spinning top.. spins great and true until it slows down... then it wobbles before falling over..

If we take the same child's top... add a slight amount of mass to one side or the other... oriented towards the bottom or top... then we spin it again..
What happens...?

Pretty simple, really.

The ability to align a telescope with Polaris doesn't explain any of this..
To say that all alignments are normal and unchanging is laughable.
Once the telescope is aligned, everything is copacetic...
for awhile.

“data”

A datum (or plural data) is a measured value.
It’s a “fact”.
It’s the output of a sensor, an algorithm or an
observation.
It is always uncertain to some extent.

Accuracy
The degree to which a measured value agrees
with the “true value”.

Precision
The degree to which repeated measurements
agree with each other.

Uncertainty
The range of values that can confidently be said to
contain the true value of a measurement.

Accuracy is external agreement.
Precision is internal agreement.

Last Edited by Waterbug on 12/15/2012 01:54 PM