Based on the concept of impacts producing axial tilt, all planets must have been impacted only once over a billion years ago.
Take Uranus with its 98 degree tilt. Why wouldn't a later impact turn Uranus to some other angle in turn offsetting its moon's orbits relative to its equator? For Uranus' moon's to be aligned with its equator the whole system of planet and moons must have slowly turned onto its side suggesting this is not an impact scenario further suggesting other planet tilt's are also not impact related. For something to turn a planet on its side, the impact energy would have to be enormous and the planet wouldn't rotate to 98 or 120 degrees then just stop it would keep rotating. |
Here's a cool time lapse video of Uranus and its moons over a four year period.
There must be something more going on which can describe axial tilt. Like me, Miles Matthis does not accept the impact idea and has theorized the axial tilt of planets is due Electro-Magnetism from the Sun and planets and he seems to be a pretty smart scientist. I don't understand his math or completely follow his logic but reading his thoughts at least opened the door for me to explore my own alternative theory as impacts are not the only possible explanation for axial tilt. |
|
<<<<<<<<
Consider how a buoy works in the ocean as it rides undulating waves. As the waves rise and fall the buoy angles or tilts in relation to the wave pattern. >>>>>>>> The buoy is heavily weighted at the bottom to keep it upright just like ships have ballast tanks to keep them upright. As they ride these waves they are tilted. |
Perhaps the planets have a tilt relative to their uneven mass distributions as they ride the troughs and crests of the waves of distorted space time created by the Sun and planets gravitational interactions.
While the spin of the Sun would have initially set up the spin of the planets their uneven distribution of mass would have tilted their axes to orient that spin in an angular pattern. |
Consider space time and the waves produced by the Sun and planets gravitational undulations with the subsequent troughs and crests. Think of it like throwing rocks into a calm lake, the ripples or waves are visualizations of what we don't see taking place in space but we see its effect as objects cluster into zones. |
This then could suggest that Pluto and Charon being of compositionally different materials (at least on the surface) perhaps did not collide.
Pluto is most likely a classical Kuiper belt object (cubewano) while Charon is instead a captured object perturbed into Pluto's orbital path by Neptune. Most of the surface material on Charon is water ice but below the surface there may a great deal of other materials with varying degrees of mass dispersed unevenly. |
|
Take a spinning gyroscope with its largest mass at it's equator, turn it on its side supported on one end and it stays there seemingly defying gravity. That one simple picture potentially blows my above theory away. Not completely though, while a gyroscope will stay in its new orientation if placed on its side, it will rotate around its axis perpendicularly. This buoyancy model may still have some merit. But the gyroscope makes me wonder. |
This gyroscope idea got me thinking, what if Uranus is turning perpendicular to its axis. Maybe its just turning so slowly we don't detect it.
A gyroscope's largest mass spins rapidly in line with its axis and when turned at a 90 degree angle, it stays at that angle but rotates perpendicular to that spin only much slower. Perhaps we can detect the axial spin of Uranus but not the slow perpendicular rotation or perhaps we haven't looked for this scenario. |
On Earth we have the precession of the equinox (our axis precesses in a cone shape every 26,000 years). It wobbles 2 degrees within that precession. Perhaps that's either this gyroscopic slow spin or it could also be an imbalance in the distribution of mass within our planet.
I'm kinda leaning toward the gyroscopic concept but then what initiates the tilt if not an imbalance of mass. That would, however, mean that both Pluto and Uranus also have an axis wobble that matches the angle of their tilt. Pluto's wobble is 24 degrees while the tilt of its axis is turned over 120. In other words its axial tilt oscillates from 102 to 126 degrees. The Earths wobble is about 2 degrees and its tilt is 24. It is believed the moon keeps our Earth's tilt from wobbling so much. |
We can see evidence of nitrogen fluid like material bubbling up from below the surface of Pluto at Sputnik Planitia. Whether there is an ocean of water or an ocean of tooth paste consistent nitrogen, there is a semi viscous fluid beneath the crust of Pluto. This means the outer surface could shift relative to the inner core whether that core is icy or rocky. An imbalance of mass along with the gyroscopic spin effect would allow Pluto to topple over. As the spin acts to stabilize the system, a precession in the axis occurs as its interior shifts back and forth adjusting against the torque created by the outer crust's spin. Even if the inner core and outer crust spin primarily together some shifting and speed variances would exist which in turn cause the tilt and wobble. |
Here's a video of Eric Laithwaite's talk on Gyroscopes. One interesting fact in this video is the slower the gyro spins the closer the spin speed matches the orbital speed.
Another interesting fact presented, near the end of the presentation, as the young boy's rotation speed was changed, the gyro's axis rose and fell accordingly. While our eight planet's orbital speed around the Sun digresses with distance, their axial spin rate seems completely arbitrary. Professor Laithwaite's full talk is an hour long and if you enjoyed his 15 minute version as much as I did you might also want to watch the full video here. |
|
Here's a video related to gyroscopic tilt, don't get hung up on the fact the guy thinks the earth is flat just fast forward to the 20 minute mark. As a pilot this guy knows you have to reset a plane's gyroscopic compass frequently as it drifts out of alignment. He has theorized turbulence causes gyroscopic alignment drift so he wobbles the Z axis to demonstrate the turbulent effect on a gyroscope.
Regardless of his philosophy about the earth, his experiment has educational value. Notice too, he has had to add putty to balance the gyroscope else it would tilt to a balanced angle. This effect likely explains how planets get into their tilted positions. |
|
In a planet with a core and a crust with a fluid separating them, they spin mostly in unison but uneven mass distributions cause slight wobbles which then offset the tilt of the planet slowly over time.
Here's a good video to demonstrate this point of gyroscopic stability or its ability to resist change. From a gyroscopic point of view small perturbations like turbulence have a greater impact on axial alignment than one massive instantaneous hit, Both individual scenarios (buoyancy/gyroscopic) have weaknesses and strengths but combining them seems to blend the strengths of each concept. No impact is required and we get a tilted axis along with precession or wobble. |
|
As long as there is a fluid between the hollowed spheres and a spin is induced along with uneven mass, gyroscopic torque along with gravity would set up any number of tilt and precession wobble scenarios.
Expand the Matryoshka concept outward to a body in space and the spherical layers extend to moons. In other words the fluid in this case becomes space itself or the distance from the surfaces of the planet to the first moon. The outer layers of the sphere become the orbital uneven mass of the moons. Expand this concept to any number of moons. Or remove all the moons like on Venus, as long as there is a sphere within a sphere with uneven mass distributions separated by a fluid then you will have axial tilt with precession. |
With the TIT concept the whole planet/moon system finds their own equilibrium of tilt and precession depending on gyroscopic spin speed, gravitational torque, number of layers and mass distribution.
When I began this page I had no idea I would end up with this conclusion. I began by building a buoyancy model and because of my willingness to tear it apart with the gyroscopic model and face complete confusion, I came up with a unique model I've never heard expressed elsewhere and one I think best describes the cause of axial tilt and precession in planets. |
Notice the impact's location, considering it disrupted the terrain on the opposite side of this planet which is primarily composed of rock and iron, this impact should have spun Mercury on its side. But just like a spinning gyroscope with angular momentum, Mercury resists attempts to change its balanced tilt angle. |
<<<<<<<<<
The yellow impact top center of this image of Mercury was massive. Its the largest impact on Mercury and its named Caloris. It hit so hard that it sent shock waves through and around to the opposite side creating a zone called the Weird Terrain. |
|
If impacts caused axial tilt Mercury should be tilted from the Caloris impact.
Venus being upside down and the same size as Earth is theoretically the result of an impact but there is no evidence that anything impacted Venus and Venus has no moon. If Earth was impacted by an object that created our moon causing the Earth to tilt 23 degrees where's the moon or debris around Venus that caused 177 degree tilt? Hellas basin on Mars is assumed to be an impact basin but on page 70 I explain why its a geological feature not an impact site. |
This TIT theory works so well explaining why moons orbit around a planets equator, it made me wonder why our own moon's inclination oscillates between 18 and 29 degrees off Earth's equator. Shouldn't the moon align closer with our planets equator? I read a good explanation to this question somewhere on the internet and now I can't find it so I'll give a quick summation. |
The Earth orbits the Sun roughly along the Sun's equator and the moon being of such a large mass and close proximity to the Sun also orbits relative to the Sun's equator rather than the Earth's. The Earth's orbital plane is set by its relation to the Sun's equator but the Earth's TIT (torque induced axial tilt), is more strongly influenced by the Earths uneven mass distribution part of which is the Moon's orbital orientation. |
Since the moon is 5 degrees off the Earth's orbital plane we don't see solar eclipses every month. The moon's inclination oscillates up and down about 5.2 degrees relative to the Earth's orbital plane around the Sun likely inducing the 2.4 degree 41,000 year wobble in the Earth's axis also known as Milankovitch Cycles. |
Planets much further away from the Sun have more gravitational influence over their closer moons and so orient them around their equators. Our planet's gravitational mass being so near the Sun does not have as great an influence over the Moon as the Sun.
This is where the TIT's strength and square of the distance effect comes into play. The further objects are from their parent body the weaker the TIT by the square of the distance. |
Here's a fun fact.
The Sun's equatorial spin is 7.25 degrees off the ecliptic plane. Why is the Sun's axis tilted 7.25°? Was it caused by an impact???? I don't think so. The orbital mass of all the planets (Jupiter and Saturn in particular) set up an uneven distribution of mass around the Sun. All of them spinning like gyroscopes induce their gravitational torque energies which need to be balanced. The Sun's TIT is 7.25 degrees. |
This image should give you a sense of scale. The Sun is enormous compared to all the other planets. If an entire planet the size of Mercury, Mars or Earth were to hit the Sun it wouldn't even notice let alone tilt from the impact. But When you combine the gravitational gyroscopic torque effect of all the planets, all their moons, all the Kuiper Belt Objects, all the Transneptunian Objects, all the asteroids in the main belt, the trojans, centaurs and a possible planet X then you just might be able to tilt the Sun with a TIT that big. |
Mars has two small satellites called moons but they look more like rocks. This is the inner most moon Phobos it has a radius of about 7 miles. The massive impact crater on Phobos is called Stickney and it has a radius of 2.8 miles. Phobos orbits Mars at a distance of only 3,700 miles compared to Earth's Moon which orbits at about 250,000 miles and has a radius of about 1,080 miles. Stickney takes up a large portion of Phobos and if impacts during their formation cause planetary tilt then Phobos should definitely be turned on its axis. But, is it? Nope! Phobos' axial tilt is zero. |
Saturn has so many cool moons.
This is Mimas aka the "Death Star" <<<<<<<<< This moon's axial tilt is zero. <<<<<<<< This is Proteus a moon of Neptune it has a 210 km radius compared to Mimas at 198 km. This impact on Proteus was enormous compared to its size and yet its axial tilt is zero. Around Saturn and Uranus there are many moons. The closer the moons to the host planet, the more the parent planet tends to control their alignment and axial tilt to the equator. |
Uneven shapes contained within the inner and outer spheres would also set up irregular waves of pressure and force (torque turbulence).
Depending on the amount and viscosity of the fluid and the mass distribution of each sphere relative to the other, they are fighting each other hydrostatically, gyroscopically, turbulently and gravitationally. Each is trying to slow the other. This appears to be why retrograde planets spin slowly, they are in the process of being completely stopped or having the rotations reversed by the gyroscopic gravitational uneven mass torque force and the fluid's viscosity and hydrostatic influence of the counter rotating inner spheres. |
This Torque Induced Tilt is sorta like Lenz's law in electromagnetism. In fact if there is a magnetic core then Lenz's law may play a direct role in this process. If you want to see a cool video showing Lenz's law in effect, watch this video >>>>>> Venus and Uranus due to solar wind interactions have atmospheric magnetic fields but likely don't have magnetic cores. Nobody knows whether Pluto has a magnetic core but probably not so Lenz's law likely doesn't apply at Pluto. |
|
Subduction
Here is the concept of subduction on earth.
Uneven subsurface irregularities would create turbulence in the molten rock fluid we call magma. These disruptions in the fluid may create hydrostatic influences that further assist in the braking process when two sphere's are counter rotating. Back to gyroscopic gravitational torque due to uneven mass and spin. |
MvGulik is a member at Zooniverse who showed me this gravity map of the Earth from the joint NASA-German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). High density areas or denser mass equals stronger gravity. Red areas are of higher gravity and blues have less gravity. There are places on the map that are red and align with high elevations of land mass with high gravity like the Himalayas as well as places of low elevations and low gravity that are blue like the Hudson bay in Canada. |
But there are also areas that are under the ocean (low elevation) that are red with high gravity. These areas align with fault lines like around New Zealand, Malaysia and Iceland. These areas being below sea level with higher gravitational fields indicate the magma below the earth's fault lines is more dense than the surrounding silicate rock creating stronger gravitational fields. HighRes gravity map of IndoPacific area. |
Grace gravity map centered over EuroAfrica Some areas on the planet with high elevations (larger amounts of mass) do display higher levels of gravity as can be seen here with this elevation map combined with high gravity zones. In other words tectonic plate collisions push increasing amounts of rock on top of each other melting rock creating volcanoes spewing large quantities of denser material into one area increasing the gravitational pull at that location. |
Grace gravity map centered over Americas >>>>>>>>> Bulging red areas represent stronger gravity. Sunken blue areas represent low gravity. Topography map of south America demonstrating how elevated land often creates increased gravity. More mass, more gravity.
|
Venus' North pole is upside down.
Below is an elevation map of Venus. White or pink is the highest elevation with red running a close second while purple followed by blue are lowest elevations. Green/yellow is sorta in the middle. Maxwell Montes is the highest point on Venus with the greatest mass. Venus' north pole is angled downward, compared to Earth it would be pointing toward our south pole. |
On Earth our magnetic pole's reverse on average once every 450,000 years. The Sun's magnetic poles reverse once every 11 years. This fact indicates something within our Sun and Planet is flopping, twisting, tilting and turning over while they gyroscopically spin.
It also indicates there are uneven distributions of mass. While you would expect the Sun's magnetic field to exert a significant influence over our planet's magnetic field, the disproportionate time frames of reversal seem to imply that this influence is negligible. |
This implies the twisting and torquing process is altered or varies over time which also acts to vary our planet's degree and frequency of axial tilt.
I suspect this magnetic flopping phenomenon is related to the inner and outer sphere's rate of rotation along with uneven mass distributions, moon or planetary orbital inclination along with their subsequent tidal bulge and the natural gyroscopic gravitational torque induced by all these variables. |
Update January 1st, 2017
found this cool animation about 6 months after I formulated this idea that helps visualize my thoughts. This animation is supposed to demonstrate how Pluto's outer crust may have wandered into its orientation with Charon as the result of nitrogen ices forming at SP along with a subsurface ocean but instead, I think it does a pretty good job of demonstrating how an imbalance in the distribution of mass will cause a torque induced tilt to the planet, consequently, reorienting its poles. This animation is a complete fabrication based on assumptions not facts, regardless, it's a cool looking animation. |
Planets have an orbital axis a spin axis and a tidal axis (above image). Depending on mass distribution and gyroscopic spin the planet twists and turns to balance its three axes something like what you see in this video. On planets with an outer skin or crust separated by a fluid with an inner core, true polar wander occurs. The outer skin can slip and slide to balance its uneven mass so that the rotational forces balance around the poles axis. |
|
|
|
Waves
I am amazed by some of the videos on sound waves like this one where sound waves are used to levitate water.
While these are high frequency relatively low power sound waves that can only levitate small objects against Earth's gravity, it visually opens our eyes to some of the possibilities of the power of waves. Planets also produce waves of sound or low frequency sound waves in the electromagnetic medium of space. I know, I know in space there is no sound but there are waves of energy. |
|
There's also this video on Helmholtz Resonators which creates circular propulsion using sound.
All of this gyroscopic gravitational spinning, hydrostatic pressure waves and pulsating electromagnetic waves collectively must be the source of torque that creates the tilt of these planets. Another aspect of this phenomenon is that if there is a fluid separating two planetary spheres, there will be a tidal bulge created by any moons in orbit. Just as our moon creates tides on our oceans, moons will likewise create tides within a planet down to their liquid level. |
|