The article shows that the Sun controls the position of the Moon's orbital plane as it rotates around the Earth. Accordingly, the planes of motion of the planets of the solar system are controlled by the center of gravity of the Milky Way.
Why is the solar system flat?
Considering the scheme of the Solar System, many of us probably asked ourselves the question: Why do all the orbits of the planets lie in the same plane? After all, it cannot be that for billions of years there could be no violations. Something has to constantly keep order and correct any deviations that arise. But what?
This question was asked by many great mathematicians and astronomers. And all, naturally, came to the conclusion: the Solar System is stable, stable, stable. But why?..
Having asked myself the same question again, I once again decided that only the center of our galaxy, around which our Sun allegedly revolves, could be to blame. But this time I began to mentally experiment with the orbits of the planets, and soon came to the conclusion that the planets' planes can only be perpendicular to the line connecting the Sun and the center of the Milky Way. Conversely, if the orbits were in a plane with this line, then the planes of the planetary orbits could be located at any angle to each other.
I drew a diagram, but I didn't want to do the calculations. After all, the "great" Einstein warned us, or maybe justified himself: "There is nothing easier than using mathematics to deceive oneself." And he should have known what he was saying.
I am not an astronomer, I will look at Wikipedia how the plane of the Solar System is inclined to the indicated line. They know almost everything. Indeed, after a couple of minutes I was convinced that this was not my idea, but delirium. Naturally.
Promotional video:
But still, my scheme haunted me. We should experiment. In principle, one orbit is sufficient. You don't have to look at everything at once. And if there is still something in this idea, then the Sun should control the orbit of the Moon.
About the orbit of the moon, not only astronomers, but we sinners also know something. Here and in Wikipedia it is not necessary to look.
To begin with, I made sure that the Moon's orbit does not really lie in the same plane with the line connecting the Earth and the Sun. If this were not so, we could observe a full moon for half a month in a row, or, conversely, a new moon. Consequently, the plane of the Moon's orbit should be approximately perpendicular to this line. With a large inclination to it, we again could observe the full moon for half a month. If it were exactly perpendicular to it, we would never see the full moon and would always see only the crescent.
Already from this small reasoning it became clear that the Sun really controls the orbit of the Moon! The Moon's orbit is constantly rotating "as it should" as the Earth moves around the Sun. Why have I never heard of this? Could it be that astronomers do not know about this ?!
It remained to take a small step and draw the position of the Moon's orbit in relation to the straight line connecting the Earth and the Sun!
How the sun controls the moon's orbit
Take a look at the picture. The Moon's orbit is perpendicular to the plane of the figure. It is shown by a straight line AB. The big ball below is the sun. The middle ball at the top is the Earth. It moves in an orbit, part of which is shown by the part of a circle passing through its center. The arrow shows the direction of movement of the Earth. Small circles at points A and B show the Moon in two extreme positions of its trajectory in orbit. Point B corresponds to the new moon, we hardly see the moon. Point A is the full moon. The moon shines with all its might. When moving from point A to B, the moon first turns into a sickle, and then goes out completely. When moving from B to A, a small crescent first appears, which gradually turns into a full moon. A full moon cannot last long, and neither can a new moon. Everything is according to the rules.
Let's move on to science. The moon, when moving around the Earth, has a significant angular momentum. He is a vector and seeks to keep his direction. In other words, the AB line should, when the Earth moves along its orbit, maintain an angle to the upper boundary of the figure. In this case, point B would gradually go beyond the limits of the trajectory of the Earth, and point A, on the contrary, would begin to approach it and enter into this trajectory. When the AB line would become tangent to the trajectory of the Earth, we would begin to see the Moon only with a sickle, and then a position would come when we would see the full Moon for half a month or only guess it in the sky for half a month.
But we know that none of this happens. Consequently, the Sun constantly rotates the plane of the Moon's orbit so as to maintain the same angle with respect to the Earth's orbit, which is (approximately) shown in the figure. This happens presumably due to the fact that point B is closer to the Sun and the VO distance is less than AO. The attraction of the Moon to the Sun at point B is greater than at point A. Therefore, at point B, the Moon is constantly approaching the Sun, and due to the fact that the angular momentum of the Moon around the Earth constantly pulls point B outside the Earth's trajectory, these two motions can be balanced and the Moon's orbit will maintain its angular position in relation to the Earth's orbit.
In other words, the angular position of the Moon's orbit relative to the Earth's orbit depends on the magnitude of the angular momentum of the Moon in near-Earth orbit. His confrontation with the Sun leads to the constancy of this angle.
Where is the Great Attractor located?
So, we have come or can come to the following conclusions.
1) The Sun controls the angular position of the Moon's trajectory relative to the Earth's trajectory around the Sun.
2) The plane of the Moon's orbit is located at an angle to the line connecting the Earth and the Sun.
3) When the direction of the Earth's orbit changes, the angle of inclination of the Moon's orbit will change symmetrically.
4) The orbit of the Moon is slightly shifted relative to the center of the Earth towards the Sun.
5) The amount of this shift can be calculated.
6) Knowing some of the parameters of this shift, you can calculate at least one of the unknowns. For example, you can specify the distance to the Sun, or, knowing this distance, you can specify the strength of its attraction.
7) As you know, experts on the movement of the moon believe that it moves "not according to the rules." Taking into account the rotation of the Moon's orbit when the Earth moves around the Sun can improve the accuracy of calculating the Moon's motion "according to the rules."
But this is natural, not all.
a) The stability of the behavior of the particles of the Saturn ring becomes more clear to us.
b) If we have a star with planets orbiting in different directions, then the perpendiculars to the plane of their orbits, passing through the central points of these orbits, form a certain angle. (There are such bodies in the solar system too).
c) The line dividing this angle in half passes through the attractor (for example, through the center of the galaxy).
d) What can be said about the planes of the planetary orbits of the star system can, apparently, be similarly said about the plane of rotation of the galaxy.
e) knowing the plane of rotation of a planetary or star system, one can roughly imagine the direction in the direction of their attractor
f) knowing the rotation planes of several nearby galaxies, one can get a more accurate idea of the location of their attractor, especially if their directions of rotation are approximately opposite.
g) by observing the rotation of a system of galaxies, we can get an idea of the direction towards the Great Attractor.
Mathematical processing of the ideas of this article can not only clarify these statements, but, possibly, get some other additional conclusions.
I never liked the theory of rotating gas (matter) and its subsequent condensation into stars and planets. The foregoing does not refute this theory, but gives reason to doubt it (it is now possible to do without it). But on the other hand, it enhances the significance of Kant's idea of a possible gradual increase in the mass of any celestial body and its subsequent transformation into a star.
Johann kern