Our Galaxy is a Vortex: Seeing How our Solar System Rotates in multiple levels...

[leftrightleftrightleft]

This would still not help. The length of orbit in days is mute...

Before I saw the post from Micheal, I would have stated that every 24 hours the earth, in the diagram, will face the same way on the page. If it is facing to the right at noon, tomorrow at noon it will face to the right. Whether it takes 60, 365 or 5000 days to orbit around the sun is of no consequence. Every 24 hours that earth will face right. So, when it gets half way through its orbit it will still be facing to the right, at noon. So, the earth, (middle left on page) will face to the right at noon and face the sun. (whatever locations that is,looks like Africa) then, one half orbit later it will face to the right and away from the sun, at noon. This messed me up.

Please see my latest post. I believe I understand. Micheal gave me some info on Sidereal days.

Yea, the sidereal day is irrelevant to your confusion though. I'm worried that Michael's post about the sidereal day has only confused you more.

The solar day is 24 hours +/- 30 seconds. So, every 24 hours, you will be facing the sun again.


The key point you miss is that the length of a year is not an even number of days. So when the Earth is on the opposite side of the sun from now, it will not be the same time of day.

There are 365.25 solar days in a year.

So, each half year is 182.625 solar days.

 

[Michael]

No this doesn't have anything to do with the issue he raises.

The source of his problem is associating the time of the solar solstice with the time of solar noon.

In retrospect, you're probably right, and I probably just compounded the confusion.

 

[[serious]]

Let's revisit:

[The interstellar wind is] coming from roughly the direction of scorpius, roughly perpendicular to our direction of travel in the galaxy.

it is not coming from the direction of Scorpius at all points nor was it assumed all interstellar wind comes from moving through a stationary cloud - but again, that is your assumption.



If you want to say anything else, give some facts and references rather than assertion. VERIFY via astrophysics.

What direction do you think the interstellar wind is coming from then?

NASA seems to agree with me that it's coming from roughly the direction of scorpius:
"From Earth's perspective, the interstellar wind flows in from a point just above the constellation Scorpius. Results from 11 spacecraft over 40 years show that the exact direction has changed some 4 to 9 degrees since the 1970s."
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/interstellar-wind-changed-direction-over-40-years

At this point, you snip out the citation to NASA saying that the interstellar wind is coming from roughly the direction of scorpius, and apparently just pretend that never happened:

Again, please show and verify - as you brought it up - that Solar Wind only comes from Scoripus and that it does not change direction in where it came from.

Now, I do notice that you keep trying to add in other qualifier words, "only comes" "doesn't change direction" etc.

But stripping out those red herrings, we are left with the simple facts:
1. You started an OP about the direction of travel in the galaxy being perpendicular to the plane of the solar system creating helix like motion (You latter acknowledged that it isn't perpendicular, but instead just at a 60 degree angle)
2. You posted a picture showing the stellar wind and heliopause coming in at roughly edge on (which it does, roughly)
3. You were asked what the solar wind had to do with the relationship between our direction of motion in the galaxy and the orbital motion of the planets.
4. You posted a copy-paste of something talking about how the direction of the interstellar wind has shifted a few degrees over the past couple decades
5. I again asked what that had to do with anything since the interstellar wind was coming in roughly perpendicular to our direction of travel in the galaxy, roughly from the direction of scorpius.
6. You said it wasn't coming from scorpius
7. I quoted a NASA page with a link showing that yes, it is coming from roughly the direction of scorpius.
8. You removed that quote and link from my post and asked for a source for an altered claim that I never made.

That's what this conversation has been after you strip out the massive block quotes and copypasta.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Let's revisit:


\

Actually, let's be serious this time with what was already visited. This is the last time, to be clear, it will be visited if you cannot visit and actually deal squarely with what was said.

At this point, you snip out the citation to NASA saying that the interstellar wind is coming from roughly the direction of scorpius, and apparently just pretend that never happened:.

You already avoided where others from NASA spoke on the differing changes in direction from solar Wind - so thus again, you have little to go with in regards to claiming it is just from Scorpius. Avoiding it does not change where you are not dealing with what other scientists have said and stated. Get over since since you already avoided citations of what other scientists have stated and then tried to avoid addressing it.

It was your claim alone that Solar Wind only comes from Scoripus and that it does not change direction in where it came from. That was the issue you brought up when it came to others noting solar wind changes in its origins and that shows that our system is moving. I already discussed where solar wind was coming from and referenced - so again, is that going to be addressed or not? Again, you alone brought up the point of solar wind when that was not even the original point of discussion. No one brought up a picture without explanation of relation to the OP, as that was you coming into a thread assuming what intent was about and not listening to discussion. As said before in Saturday at 8:51 AM:

As
noted
:
​

There are a couple of reasons why I think this model could just be right. First of all, the heliocentrical model has always been presented (especially by NASA) as a “frisbee” model.


[image taken from here]
​

Think about this for a minute. In this diagram it seems the Solar System travel to the left. When the Earth is also traveling to the left (for half a year) it must go faster than the Sun. Then in the second half of the year, it travels in a “relative opposite direction” so it must go slower than the Sun. Then, after completing one orbit, it must increase speed to overtake the Sun in half a year. And this would go for all the planets. Just like any point you draw on a frisbee will not have a constant speed, neither will any planet.

As stated before, Interstellar Wind comes from more than one direction and can shift. As said before - from University of New Hampshire at What do we know about the local interstellar medium?
:

Our sun (and solar system) are currently moving through a cloud of interstellar gas. This cloud is approximately 60 light years across, with our sun being only appoximately 4 light years from the edge. Our local cloud, which features a density of 0.1 particles per cubic centimeter, and a temperature of about 6000-7000 K) is immersed in the "Local Bubble," which has extremely low densities (approximately 0.001 particles per cubic centimeter) and very high temperatures (approx. 1,000,000 K). The local bubble is about 300 light years in diameter, and may have been created by a supernova explosion. How do we know about this? The material from our local cloud can be sampled within the solar system, a process you learned about in the previous section of this tutorial.

How the interstellar wind is focused by the sun's gravitational field (click for Flash movie)​

Our sun is moving through the local interstellar gas cloud approximately into the direction of Scorpio with a speed of about 25 km/sec. As a result of this motion, an interstellar wind with that speed is blowing through our planetary system. This is similar to the wind felt while driving a convertible car with the top down. We measure this interstellar wind as helium, and the density of helium changes with our year, an effect that can be seen in this brief animation.

This radiation would turn the neutral gas atoms into ions and electrons that would then be swept out of the solar system by the gale-force solar wind, with speeds of 300 - 1000 km/sec. Until the late 1960's, astonomers thought that in this manner, the Sun would sweep the space around itself clean because of its fierce UV ratiation (UV radiation is the wavelength that provides us with a sun tan). However, the Sun rushes through the gas, so that there is not enough time for the atoms to lose their electrons and become charged until the atoms are actually very close to the sun. The two different views are illustrated in the following images:

NASA seems to agree with me that it's coming from roughly the direction of scorpius:
"From Earth's perspective, the interstellar wind flows in from a point just above the constellation Scorpius. Results from 11 spacecraft over 40 years show that the exact direction has changed some 4 to 9 degrees since the 1970s."
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/interstellar-wind-changed-direction-over-40-years

And other physicists have noted differently as it concerns changing directions:

• The Galactic Environment of the Sun - American Scientist

As noted there:

Figure 1. Our “neighborhood” in the Milky Way lies just inside one of the galaxy’s great spiral arms, the Orion Arm. The majority of the brightest stars are distributed along a section of sky known as Gould’s Belt (dashed ellipse), which also marks the distribution of the nearby star-forming regions in the Orion spiral arm. Stellar winds from these star-forming regions—such as the Scorpius-Centaurus association—push “shells” of interstellar material into the sun’s path. The sun is currently on the edge of such a shell (not visible at this scale). The actions of interstellar winds and the sun’s own motion through the galaxy may alter the sun’s local galactic environment on time scales as brief as a few thousand years. The author discusses what space scientists know about the interaction between the solar system and its changing galactic environment. (Courtesy of the National Geographic Society. Adapted from the supplement to the October 1999 issue of National Geographic.)


The sun is on the edge of what is sometimes called the Local Bubble, a great void in the distribution of interstellar gas in the nearby galactic neighborhood. As voids go, the Local Bubble interior is one of the most extreme vacuums yet discovered. The very best laboratory vacuum is about 10,000 times denser than a typical interstellar cloud, which in turn is thousands of times denser than the Local Bubble. The Local Bubble is not only relatively empty (with a density of less than 0.001 atoms per cubic centimeter); it is also quite hot, about one million degrees kelvin. By comparison, the interstellar cloud around the solar system is merely warm, about 7,000 degrees, with a density of about 0.3 atoms per cubic centimeter.

The Local Bubble lies within a ring of young stars and star-forming regions known as Gould’s Belt. The Belt is evident in the night sky as a band of very bright stars that sweeps in a great circle from the constellations Orion to Scorpius, inclined about 20 degrees relative to the galactic plane. The north pole of Gould’s Belt lies close to the Lockman Hole, a region in the sky with the least amount of intervening interstellar gas between the sun and extragalactic space. Star formation regulates the distribution of interstellar matter, including the boundaries of the Local Bubble. The closest star-forming region on the outskirts of the Local Bubble is about 400 light-years away in the Scorpius-Centaurus association. The molecular clouds from which stars are formed are both cooler (less than 100 degrees) and denser (over 1,000 atoms per cubic centimeter) than the Local Interstellar Cloud. A plot of the sun’s course through our galactic locale shows that the sun has been traveling through the Gould’s Belt interior in a region of very low average interstellar density for several million years. The sun is unlikely to have encountered a large, dense interstellar cloud in this relatively benign region during this time. Although our solar system is in the process of emerging from the Local Bubble, the sun’s trajectory suggests that it will probably not encounter a large, dense cloud for at least several more million years.​

• https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24153-solar-system-caught-in-an-interstellar-tempest/

Solar wind sock

Since the 1970s, we’ve known that the solar system is moving through a cloud of interstellar gas about 30 light years across, out on the edge of the Milky Way galaxy. The sun’s motion through the cloud creates an apparent wind of interstellar particles that slams into the heliosphere.

Most of the wind’s particles are charged and so are deflected around the heliosphere by the sun’s magnetic field. But some heavier, neutral atoms – mostly helium – make it inside. These helium atoms scatter off the charged particles coming from the sun and create a diffuse glow in extreme ultraviolet wavelengths that is visible across the entire sky.


A US Department of Defence (DoD) satellite called STP 72-1 mapped this glow in 1972 and found that the intensity jumped by a factor of 10 in late November compared with what it had been in June. Around January, it calmed down again. That spike occurred because Earth passed through a build-up of neutral helium atoms as it orbited the sun.

As helium atoms from the interstellar cloud enter the heliosphere, their trajectories are bent by the sun’s gravity, creating a cone downwind from the flow of interstellar particles. The cone acts like a wind sock, revealing the direction that the wind is coming from, and it was Earth passing through this cone that provided STP 72-1 with its November spike.

Winds of change
But then NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX), launched in 2009, revealed something odd: the wind has changed direction. IBEX has been directly sampling neutral helium atoms from the interstellar cloud as part of its mission to map the boundary between the solar system and the rest of the galaxy. Its readings show that, instead of Earth passing through the sun’s helium tail in late November, the peak came about a week late, in early December. That indicates a change in wind direction of about 6 degrees in only 40 years.

“We didn’t expect any indication of visible changes on the timescale of tens of years,” says Moebius. “That’s really the surprising thing, in terms of astronomical scales.”

To make sure the change was real, Frisch and colleagues gathered historical data from nine other spacecraft, including the original extreme UV measurements from the 1970s, as well as direct helium measurements from theUlysses spacecraft that flew in the 1990s. They saw a statistically significant trend.

Stuck in the middle
“While there had been hints that something was changing in the environment of the sun, when we finally put all the historical data together it became clear that one can make a strong scientific statement that this change has actually occurred,” says Frisch. What the change means is still up for debate. We could be nearing the cloud’s edge, or we could still be in the thick of it, pushing our way through an interstellar storm.

​

G

Now, I do notice that you keep trying to add in other qualifier words, "only comes" "doesn't change direction" etc.

But stripping out those red herrings,

One, you already added in qualifiers when claiming that a picture noting how our galaxy is going in a direction means that solar wind can only come from one place. If you're going to do red herrings (as everything else you said is exactly that), there are better ways to go about the process.

we are left with the simple facts:
1. You started an OP about the direction of travel in the galaxy being perpendicular to the plane of the solar system creating helix like motion

Incorrect, again, as you show in your words where you seem to not be aware on the difference between facts and what you wish to see in your own opinions when they are not accepted. You avoided what was noted in the OP SEVERAL TIMES as well as showing you barely were able to deal with context when repeating things that no one was arguing. The OP:

Orbit as a concept (when seeing how the orbit of differing celestial bodies differ from one another) can be a bit intriguing when seeing how things revolve relative to the rest of how our solar system operates......the world God made is truly amazing.

The helical model - our Galaxy is a vortex

​

Claiming I started an OP about a perpendicular orbit is baseless and a falsehood - as there was NOTHING in the OP REMOTELY claiming that...especially when I noted later what the author of the OP video had noted on intention. You can either deal with that or continue on a crusade to push something that no one was arguing. But you already avoided what the author of the OP video was speaking on - especially when it came to videos not being fully to scale.

This again is where you show you not only avoided the video itself but have appealed to an argument of incredulity since no one argued the video was about a galaxy being perpendicular. As the author of the video ALREADY noted before when correcting the same responses you gave (if actually serious on seeing context) - as he noted in Solar System 2.0:

Our Solar System is a Vortex showed the helical patterns of the planets over time and connected it with other helical patterns found elsewhere.

- The planets are in the wrong order! Yes, I totally screwed up two orbits right before rendering the video. Out of millions of viewers maybe 50 noticed, but they’re right. But, this should not make you not see the point.

- It’s a helix, not a vortex! Maybe, but you get the point, right? Also this should not make you not see the point.

- The sun is not like a comet! Well, it kind of is, actually. Even NASA used the term “like a comet“.

- The heliocentric model is not “wrong”! I agree that to a certain degree it is a matter of “frame of reference”, but I am still of the opinion that gives a “wrong” impression, or “incomplete” for that matter. I’m willing to take it down a notch and say there’s more to reality than the heliocentric dinner-plate diagrams. Fair enough?

- The sun does not lead the planets! In this case, you comment on the wrong video. It’s the other video that demonstrates the cone shaped model. After reading the Plait article a lot of folks rushed to comment what they just read (about 24 times “all wrong”), not even noticing that in this video the planets are nicely lined up.

- The angle with the Galaxy is 60 degrees, not 90! There is no galaxy in this video, so what angle? Maybe the angle relative to the travel direction, but more on that later. Again, reading an article, rushing, blabla, and not even looking closely.

- This is religious crap! Hahaha, I can assure you I am NOT religious. Maybe spiritually minded, but that’s like the opposite of religious.

- You should be in jail for misleading people! Really, someone actually said that. She (yeah, she) should make a great fascist, throwing people in jail for an idea.
​

(You latter acknowledged that it isn't perpendicular, but instead just at a 60 degree angle)

You claimed it was not addressed Yesterday at 7:00 PM, despite the fact that you directly avoided where the issue was already covered by myself when you avoided it in Saturday at 8:43 AM since you skipped over it - so respectfully, please get over it and deal with what was already said:

ok, if you understand that, you should understand also that in a few dozen million years the solar system will be moving through the galaxy edge on.

Seeing that other astrophysicists have disagreed on that issue, again, do you understand the Helic model at all? For your response already shows a bit of lacking in the basic understanding on the issue. As the author of the video noted directly in Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com

:

- The angle with the Galaxy is 60 degrees! At 2:55 in the video I show how this could be the result of the upward angle of the Sun’s path.


- The sun’s path around the Galaxy itself is not helical! That may be. It’s surely not a straight line, we most certainly travel above and below the galactic plane, and I would not be surprised if there were more components to this pattern. Some say it is, and connect this to electromagnetism. But it is certainly not ‘mainstream’ to think this way.

- Our solar system does not have a tail! Well, according to NASA, space.com and DiscoverMagazine, it kind of does.

- It’s only a change in frame of reference! In a way, yes. But can it be “all wrong” and at the same timeonly a change of perspective? The confusing part is that some claim the helical model is “nothing new”, and other claim it’s “all wrong”. Go figure.



Our Solar System is a Vortex showed the helical patterns of the planets over time and connected it with other helical patterns found elsewhere.

- The planets are in the wrong order! Yes, I totally screwed up two orbits right before rendering the video. Out of millions of viewers maybe 50 noticed, but they’re right. But, this should not make you not see the point.

- It’s a helix, not a vortex! Maybe, but you get the point, right? Also this should not make you not see the point.

- The sun is not like a comet! Well, it kind of is, actually. Even NASA used the term “like a comet“.

- The heliocentric model is not “wrong”! I agree that to a certain degree it is a matter of “frame of reference”, but I am still of the opinion that gives a “wrong” impression, or “incomplete” for that matter. I’m willing to take it down a notch and say there’s more to reality than the heliocentric dinner-plate diagrams. Fair enough?

- The sun does not lead the planets! In this case, you comment on the wrong video. It’s the other video that demonstrates the cone shaped model. After reading the Plait article a lot of folks rushed to comment what they just read (about 24 times “all wrong”), not even noticing that in this video the planets are nicely lined up.

- The angle with the Galaxy is 60 degrees, not 90! There is no galaxy in this video, so what angle? Maybe the angle relative to the travel direction, but more on that later. Again, reading an article, rushing, blabla, and not even looking closely.

...
Out of all these wacky ideas in the first two videos there’s only one that’s most important to me. No, it’s not whether the solar system’s path is a wobble or a helix. No, it’s not whether the sun ‘leads’ the planets or not. No, it’s not the ‘pictures of leaves’. As this guy Ché Pasa understood right away, it’s the impressionthat the standard diagram gives.

It is how we see the solar system in our mind’s eye.

For me, the difference between a stationary looking dinner plate model and this dynamic, spiraling model was too huge to ignore. If you ask anyone what they see when they think of the solar system, they will probably describe something like this:

​

Obviously, I think there’s much more to it than that. Better yet, I think the helical model is quite provable. So, I decided to make another video demonstrating this helical pattern, but this time without the ‘wacky claims’. Just to get the point across: we’re moving, folks! I decided to dial it down a notch, leave out all the debatable details, no furious claims, no stepping on toes, no ‘pictures of leaves’, just the helical model. And make it art.

Here is Solar System 2.0 – a ‘new’ way of looking at our solar system. Sure, the knowledge that we’re moving may have been out there somewhere… but not the image.

G..

​

C’mon, now don’t tell me this was exactly how you always imagined it was.

Did you notice that from 2:05 you can actually see BOTH models? I included this shot just to show how dramatic this ‘change of perspective’ can be. Here’s the heliocentric model put into a helical frame of reference:

Although this is kind of “my own interpretation” of the 60 degree angle (no, not again!) it could work. But even if you disagree, this should not make you not see the point.​

Also, did you notice there were no ‘wacky claims’ and no ‘pictures of leaves’? Don’t get me wrong here, I still believe it’s all connected, still read David Icke, still believe other woowoo stuff – it’s just not in this video. So what I would like is to see this video to be judged by its contents, and not to be debunked because the author ‘has David Icke on his site’.



“Peer review #01″

I recently had an email conversation with Rhys Taylor, an astrophysicist who also wrote an article about the first video. He’s seems like quite a nice guy with a great sense of humor. And he actually managed to see past the wacky stuff and notice something of a point. He also made his own version, and pointed out that there were similarities:

He explained to me how it all had worked from ‘their’ perspective, and why everyone reacted the way they did.

“I don’t think it’s fair to say that discrediting the other stuff on your website was not relevant. You made quite an explicit link between the motion of the planets and DNA and other organic structures. In effect, you claimed that your alternative source model provides evidence for a pseudo-scientific idea about the Fibonacci sequence. That was never going to go down well“.
But he also wrote: “I did, of course, get extremely annoyed by the promotion of this nonsensical alternative [cone shaped] model, but I wanted to make it absolutely clear that this helical-path business is perfectly correct.”

Sure, and I explained to him how it all had worked from my perspective, and why I made this new video. He blogged about this conversation here.

Here are some selective quotes from our conversation:

Rhys: “First, you presented the idea of helical paths as though it were some revolutionary new model. You could have very easily checked with more or less any astronomer who would have told you that we already know this is the case. True, a shiny animation did not exist to show it, but that, as I said, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t known. That doesn’t mean the video wasn’t worthwhile either, only that it should have been expressed differently. […] I do think Plait was right to call you out – even if he missed a pretty big point that the motion of the Solar System is rarely illustrated. Most of the problems with the original could, and should, have been easily prevented. It’s still a very nice rendering of the motion of the Solar System, but in context it was saying, “I’m an unqualified DJ who’s overturned all of astronomy“.”

Me: “The point is how people ‘see’ the solar system. Although the helical paths may have been known to astronomers and astrophysicists (and part of the public), what people ‘see’ when they think about the solar system is in my opinion incomplete. I doubt even astronomers see the solar system like the dynamic helical system as shown in my video, even though they may have all the facts that support it. I’m really hoping this “Solar System 2.0″ concept is getting the point across without shooting the idea in the foot again. […] Since I personally experienced that “aha moment” when I first found out the diagrams I had been watching all my life told only half the story, I’m willing to be that “nutter” as long as this becomes common knowledge.”

Me: “And how come, even though the standard model is ‘correct’ and ‘complete’… you had to come up with a completely new animation to show the old model is okay? Because there was no such video… and that’s what I find annoying. “Science” quickly jumps onto the “it’s all wrong” bandwagon… and then you have to go and tinker to personally make the first “correct” version (oh the angle is a bit different) The complete model should have been out there all along! Noo, let’s debunk DjSadhu, and then make the correct version - for the first time!”

Rhys: “Well, as I wrote in the article : ” What honestly surprises me is that this is so incredibly popular on the internet. If you weren’t aware that the Sun orbits the center of the galaxy – which, since the planets orbit it, necessitates that they trace out helical paths – then the education system has seriously failed. I have been accused of sounding jealous on this point, but unfortunately for me my statement is absolutely true. Honestly, it was so obvious to me that the planets trace out helical paths that I’m still amazed people find this such a revelation. Any object moving in a circular path around a moving center MUST trace out a helix. I find this so obvious I really don’t get why it needs to be stated, let alone visualised. But apparently I’m wrong, and it does. That’s why people like me and Plait are going to get pretty riled if you (intentionally or otherwise) claim that there’s something wrong with the heliocentric model – there isn’t, it’s purely a choice of reference frame.[…] The fact that the Sun and the Solar System orbit the galactic center ought to be considered as ordinary as the Earth going round the Sun. Your latest video has my full support. You’re clearly correct that large numbers of people aren’t aware that the Solar System moves through space – or if they are, they haven’t realised exactly what that means. Your video is a great way of demonstrating that.” (emphasis added)

Full article here.​

You cannot even quote in verification the things you claimed I said, so of course it is NOT taken seriously when it was already noted: Do you understand the Helic Model and have you addressed it? As noted before, if you're going to be in the thread, the issues have already been made clear - so rather than harping on side issues having nothing pertaining to the thread, address what was already noted. As it concerns the OP and every single objection to the video addressed that you refused to deal with, I repeat what was said by the author of the video in the OP in Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com

:

- The angle with the Galaxy is 60 degrees! At 2:55 in the video I show how this could be the result of the upward angle of the Sun’s path.


- The sun’s path around the Galaxy itself is not helical! That may be. It’s surely not a straight line, we most certainly travel above and below the galactic plane, and I would not be surprised if there were more components to this pattern. Some say it is, and connect this to electromagnetism. But it is certainly not ‘mainstream’ to think this way.

- Our solar system does not have a tail! Well, according to NASA, space.com and DiscoverMagazine, it kind of does.

- It’s only a change in frame of reference! In a way, yes. But can it be “all wrong” and at the same timeonly a change of perspective? The confusing part is that some claim the helical model is “nothing new”, and other claim it’s “all wrong”. Go figure.



Our Solar System is a Vortex showed the helical patterns of the planets over time and connected it with other helical patterns found elsewhere.

- The planets are in the wrong order! Yes, I totally screwed up two orbits right before rendering the video. Out of millions of viewers maybe 50 noticed, but they’re right. But, this should not make you not see the point.

- It’s a helix, not a vortex! Maybe, but you get the point, right? Also this should not make you not see the point.

- The sun is not like a comet! Well, it kind of is, actually. Even NASA used the term “like a comet“.

- The heliocentric model is not “wrong”! I agree that to a certain degree it is a matter of “frame of reference”, but I am still of the opinion that gives a “wrong” impression, or “incomplete” for that matter. I’m willing to take it down a notch and say there’s more to reality than the heliocentric dinner-plate diagrams. Fair enough?

- The sun does not lead the planets! In this case, you comment on the wrong video. It’s the other video that demonstrates the cone shaped model. After reading the Plait article a lot of folks rushed to comment what they just read (about 24 times “all wrong”), not even noticing that in this video the planets are nicely lined up.

- The angle with the Galaxy is 60 degrees, not 90! There is no galaxy in this video, so what angle? Maybe the angle relative to the travel direction, but more on that later. Again, reading an article, rushing, blabla, and not even looking closely.

...
Out of all these wacky ideas in the first two videos there’s only one that’s most important to me. No, it’s not whether the solar system’s path is a wobble or a helix. No, it’s not whether the sun ‘leads’ the planets or not. No, it’s not the ‘pictures of leaves’. As this guy Ché Pasa understood right away, it’s the impressionthat the standard diagram gives.

It is how we see the solar system in our mind’s eye.

For me, the difference between a stationary looking dinner plate model and this dynamic, spiraling model was too huge to ignore. If you ask anyone what they see when they think of the solar system, they will probably describe something like this:

​

Obviously, I think there’s much more to it than that. Better yet, I think the helical model is quite provable. So, I decided to make another video demonstrating this helical pattern, but this time without the ‘wacky claims’. Just to get the point across: we’re moving, folks! I decided to dial it down a notch, leave out all the debatable details, no furious claims, no stepping on toes, no ‘pictures of leaves’, just the helical model. And make it art.

Here is Solar System 2.0 – a ‘new’ way of looking at our solar system. Sure, the knowledge that we’re moving may have been out there somewhere… but not the image.

G..

​

C’mon, now don’t tell me this was exactly how you always imagined it was.

Did you notice that from 2:05 you can actually see BOTH models? I included this shot just to show how dramatic this ‘change of perspective’ can be. Here’s the heliocentric model put into a helical frame of reference:

Although this is kind of “my own interpretation” of the 60 degree angle (no, not again!) it could work. But even if you disagree, this should not make you not see the point.​

Also, did you notice there were no ‘wacky claims’ and no ‘pictures of leaves’? Don’t get me wrong here, I still believe it’s all connected, still read David Icke, still believe other woowoo stuff – it’s just not in this video. So what I would like is to see this video to be judged by its contents, and not to be debunked because the author ‘has David Icke on his site’.



“Peer review #01″

I recently had an email conversation with Rhys Taylor, an astrophysicist who also wrote an article about the first video. He’s seems like quite a nice guy with a great sense of humor. And he actually managed to see past the wacky stuff and notice something of a point. He also made his own version, and pointed out that there were similarities:

He explained to me how it all had worked from ‘their’ perspective, and why everyone reacted the way they did.

“I don’t think it’s fair to say that discrediting the other stuff on your website was not relevant. You made quite an explicit link between the motion of the planets and DNA and other organic structures. In effect, you claimed that your alternative source model provides evidence for a pseudo-scientific idea about the Fibonacci sequence. That was never going to go down well“.
But he also wrote: “I did, of course, get extremely annoyed by the promotion of this nonsensical alternative [cone shaped] model, but I wanted to make it absolutely clear that this helical-path business is perfectly correct.”

Sure, and I explained to him how it all had worked from my perspective, and why I made this new video. He blogged about this conversation here.

Here are some selective quotes from our conversation:

Rhys: “First, you presented the idea of helical paths as though it were some revolutionary new model. You could have very easily checked with more or less any astronomer who would have told you that we already know this is the case. True, a shiny animation did not exist to show it, but that, as I said, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t known. That doesn’t mean the video wasn’t worthwhile either, only that it should have been expressed differently. […] I do think Plait was right to call you out – even if he missed a pretty big point that the motion of the Solar System is rarely illustrated. Most of the problems with the original could, and should, have been easily prevented. It’s still a very nice rendering of the motion of the Solar System, but in context it was saying, “I’m an unqualified DJ who’s overturned all of astronomy“.”

Me: “The point is how people ‘see’ the solar system. Although the helical paths may have been known to astronomers and astrophysicists (and part of the public), what people ‘see’ when they think about the solar system is in my opinion incomplete. I doubt even astronomers see the solar system like the dynamic helical system as shown in my video, even though they may have all the facts that support it. I’m really hoping this “Solar System 2.0″ concept is getting the point across without shooting the idea in the foot again. […] Since I personally experienced that “aha moment” when I first found out the diagrams I had been watching all my life told only half the story, I’m willing to be that “nutter” as long as this becomes common knowledge.”

Me: “And how come, even though the standard model is ‘correct’ and ‘complete’… you had to come up with a completely new animation to show the old model is okay? Because there was no such video… and that’s what I find annoying. “Science” quickly jumps onto the “it’s all wrong” bandwagon… and then you have to go and tinker to personally make the first “correct” version (oh the angle is a bit different) The complete model should have been out there all along! Noo, let’s debunk DjSadhu, and then make the correct version - for the first time!”

Rhys: “Well, as I wrote in the article : ” What honestly surprises me is that this is so incredibly popular on the internet. If you weren’t aware that the Sun orbits the center of the galaxy – which, since the planets orbit it, necessitates that they trace out helical paths – then the education system has seriously failed. I have been accused of sounding jealous on this point, but unfortunately for me my statement is absolutely true. Honestly, it was so obvious to me that the planets trace out helical paths that I’m still amazed people find this such a revelation. Any object moving in a circular path around a moving center MUST trace out a helix. I find this so obvious I really don’t get why it needs to be stated, let alone visualised. But apparently I’m wrong, and it does. That’s why people like me and Plait are going to get pretty riled if you (intentionally or otherwise) claim that there’s something wrong with the heliocentric model – there isn’t, it’s purely a choice of reference frame.[…] The fact that the Sun and the Solar System orbit the galactic center ought to be considered as ordinary as the Earth going round the Sun. Your latest video has my full support. You’re clearly correct that large numbers of people aren’t aware that the Solar System moves through space – or if they are, they haven’t realised exactly what that means. Your video is a great way of demonstrating that.” (emphasis added)

Full article here.​

You claimed it was not addressed, despite the fact that you directly avoided where the issue was already covered by myself when you avoided it in Saturday at 8:43 AM

2. You posted a picture showing the stellar wind and heliopause coming in at roughly edge on (which it does, roughly).
3. You were asked what the solar wind had to do with the relationship between our direction of motion in the galaxy and the orbital motion of the planets.
4. You posted a copy-paste of something talking about how the direction of the interstellar wind has shifted a few degrees over the past couple decades

5. I again asked what that had to do with anything since the interstellar wind was coming in roughly perpendicular to our direction of travel in the galaxy, roughly from the direction of scorpius.
6. You said it wasn't coming from scorpius

7. I quoted a NASA page with a link showing that yes, it is coming from roughly the direction of scorpius.
8. You removed that quote and link from my post and asked for a source for an altered claim that I never made.

Again, irrelevant to the discussion when avoiding what the picture was about - as noted when the author was discussing how solar wind comes at things from the left of the image (which is arguing based on silence on your part since only you assumed Solar Wind CANNOT change direction and avoiding where scientists have noted that solar wind not only indicates that we ARE moving....but they have also noted that we are seeing changes in the direction the wind comes from.

Now, counter to the erroneous claim you made, I did not remove your quote since I already saw earlier where you cited something from NASA - as noted before in when I quoted you saying the following Yesterday at 10:48 AM:

NASA seems to agree with me that it's coming from roughly the direction of scorpius:
"From Earth's perspective, the interstellar wind flows in from a point just above the constellation Scorpius. Results from 11 spacecraft over 40 years show that the exact direction has changed some 4 to 9 degrees since the 1970s."
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/interstellar-wind-changed-direction-over-40-years

You also did a circular argument since you begged the question when claiming that I was advocating Solar wind was coming perpendicular. If others are not arguing a point, don't argue against it and then expect them to answer your argument since it's a caricature - the issue was that the solar system was moving and the video itself (as the author of the video noted directly in Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com ) was not making a fully-to-scale model anyhow. Sadhu references Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat in his research, stating that it was Bhat that developed the new, Helical model seen in the video from the OP.

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    • Dr. P. Keshava Bhat

As said before in Monday at 1:18 AM, Of course, the argument wasn't about whether the planets were not behind the sun at any point ...the solar system isn't 'flat' in the plane of the disc and there is nothing flat about the solar system if you consider it from the thermodynamic center that it is formed around. . Even Galilean-Newtonian relativity(which is still valid under Einsteinian relativity) explains how the vortex model in the OP is experimentally indistinguishable from a planar (flat) model, but when it comes to failing to see the Vortex model as connected with dynamics of a flat one, that's where things become complicated. But the actual model of the solar system is one of mutual wobbling where the planets and extrasolar bodies pull very slightly on the sun as they all orbit on their elliptical paths (with one of the each ellipses' two foci being centred on the sun).

But again, if you're going to do a circular argument, I do not expect you to address that. This is what conversation has been when you strip out all of the massive bunny trails you've began by majoring on minors or making caricature - and as said before, if you cannot address what was said, move on. No one is forcing you here..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

A solar day and a sidereal "day" are slightly different for the reasons that you mentioned.

Galaxy is definitely complex...especially as it concerns the impact on our days.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

As long as we're quibbling......

Shouldn't the sun itself be moving in a tiny bit of a corkscrew pattern related to it orbiting around the center of mass of the solar system? It's a point located inside of the sun, so it's small and difficult to see, but as long as we're complaining.....

As it concerns accuracy, one may appreciate Alan Friot who gave an excellent presentation showing how he discovered Earth's Third Axis (and named it the Zale Angle, as it's 2.22 degrees by the way).

• Written by Alan Friot

As another pointed out:

Alan Friot discovered Earth's Third Axis (and named it the Zale Angle, it's 2.22 degrees by the way.) So the next time you mentally zoom out far enough to imagine reality as correctly as possible, please remember that the Sun is moving a million miles a day in a grand galactic revolution, with the Earth racing along in a helical motion with the Sun, and while imagining all that correctly now add in one more factor, Alan Friot's discovery, Earth's third axis, the Zale Angle, the fact that Earth's helical rotation around the Sun isn't perfectly perpendicular to the Sun's direction of movement, there is an angle of course, just like all planets have, it just so happens that until Alan Friot came along and reminded us of this angle, our best minds were assuming that Earth's rotation was perfectly perpendicular to the Sun's direction of movement (which would be unlikely, think about it) and/or were assuming that this third axis didn't matter to our calculations - it turns this third axis totally DOES matter, since this third angle of 2.2 degrees INTERACTS with the actual axial tip of 21.28 degrees (which together add up to 23.5) and the interaction between those TWO angles is what finally properly explains the annual movement of the direct overhead - and yes, this third axis angle of 2.22 degrees was lacking from all previous models of direct-overhead-movement until Alan Friot shared his 2.22 degree axis discovery with a simple video on Youtube. ​

[/QUOTE]

 

[JacksBratt]

Yea, the sidereal day is irrelevant to your confusion though. I'm worried that Michael's post about the sidereal day has only confused you more.

The solar day is 24 hours +/- 30 seconds. So, every 24 hours, you will be facing the sun again.


The key point you miss is that the length of a year is not an even number of days. So when the Earth is on the opposite side of the sun from now, it will not be the same time of day.

There are 365.25 solar days in a year.

So, each half year is 182.625 solar days.

The time for one orbit is not even a factor.

If, every 24 hours, the earth makes one rotation, then every 24 hours the earth will face the same direction.
Therefore, if the earth in the diagram (middle left) has a person standing in Africa, at noon each day they will face the right hand side of the diagram. Every 24 hours, they will face the same way. So, in one half orbit of the sun, no matter how many days months, years, half days, 1/4 days, it takes, the person in Africa will face to the right. Every 24 hours, the will face to the right. So, in one half orbit, it will be night at noon and in another 1/2 orbit it will be day.

There is no way around this. 1/8th orbit, 1/32 orbit, 56/84's or an orbit, this person will face straight to the right of the page.

As the earth orbits the sun, the time we call noon will gradually move closer, or further from day to night then back again.

 

[florida2]

Doesn't copying and pasting huge amounts of the same text and video over and over again not count as spam? Let alone making pages rediculously large.

 

[[serious]]

Doesn't copying and pasting huge amounts of the same text and video over and over again not count as spam? Let alone making pages rediculously large.

Yeah, it gets to be a slog digging through massive block quotes to see if he actually posted anything in response to other posts.

If he ever gets around to explaining the relevance of the direction interstellar wind to trying to make a helix based model of orbits, let me know.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Doesn't copying and pasting huge amounts of the same text and video over and over again not count as spam? Let alone making pages rediculously large.

As said in the OP:

If anyone would like to participate in the thread, please keep in mind the discussion will be centered on the video itself dealing with the Helic Model and the author of the video in what he has shared on the matter. Any questions or desires for clarity can be seen in first choosing to deal with what the author of the video has said - and to keep from going off topic or any kind of discussions not focused on seeing what's the best model, it is asked that anyone choosing to come into this thread will please be respectful in dealing with the topic before speaking. Those who feel there are different models to consider that may be better, by all means share any articles or reviews you feel are relevant and I'd love to discuss them. Blessings

Those are the boundaries/rules for discussion. When the focus of discussion is an excerpt from an article or a video and it is shared what the conversation is about, that is context of discussion. When the original context is avoided, it is repeated since the focus of di Coming into a thread avoiding the topic to bring up side issues is considered drive-by commentary and in some places it has been seen as trolling, which in/of itself is on the same level as spam. There are other threads where this has been brought up before in regards to being respectful/not trying to make personal comments that avoid dealing with the focus of a thread. Spamming involves advertisement---and that's not what occurs here in discussion whenever people discuss an issue and then give either reference or visual aid (as others have noted appreciation for ) to illustrate a point.

But when an article is the focus of discussion, it is spamming coming into a thread noting directly for discussion to occur on a topic and only taking time to comment on text/size repeatedly - again, drive-by commentary.

When people want to read something, they'll read it---regardless of extent. That has shown itself true in a myriad of situations. There is no golden rule or standard as if all are the same, as for some a paragraph or two is more than than they can handle and others find it woefully lacking when dealing with comprehensive issues that require more than quip or generalization deemed to be all there is on a topic. It has always been a trip seeing people who note that some things deemed to be "spam" are repeatedly short, especially as it concerns the SAME REPEATED advertisments/party rhetorics sent.

Perception always makes a world of difference in discussion. Went to college-prep high school and it was the case that you learned to deal with things as they are. Other college/high school students have dealt with FAR more than what happens on this forum (or others I've seen in action) and it's not an issue, with many of them finding it humorous when others can't handle more than two paragraphs/complain on it being too long simply because of an excerpt noting a point and others having an agenda. People simply have differing levels of what they can handle and they often give more room to that which they're for and find any reason to give less room (or consideration) for that which they're against....and indeed, it'S a bit slothful.

Whenever one is able to find time to be somewhere extensively/chat up, they have time for other things and refuse to deal with it simply because they don't want to. If one doesn't want to deal with something, they can be respectful and not participate. Coming into a thread outside of what the thread boundaries were simply to grip is not showing issue with the article as much as issue with them not liking to deal with things.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yeah, it gets to be a slog digging through massive block quotes to see if he actually posted anything in response to other posts.

People tend to deflect when there's no real ability (or concern ) to factually address the issue. As a general rule, they tend to opt for focusing on ascetics rather than give real content in responses when they really are not willing to tackle what was noted. Of course it is understandable when others do so, but it tends to be a bit inane having to dig through repeated assertions to see when you'll actually say something substantial rather than share rhetoric without verification.

The discussion did not even need to have quotes from the author of the video present in order for it to prove true that you would tend to distract/deflect if it meant skipping over the issue since you already made several blatant falsehoods against people that were NOT what they claimed.

The OP was already clear:

As said in the OP:

If anyone would like to participate in the thread, please keep in mind the discussion will be centered on the video itself dealing with the Helic Model and the author of the video in what he has shared on the matter. Any questions or desires for clarity can be seen in first choosing to deal with what the author of the video has said - and to keep from going off topic or any kind of discussions not focused on seeing what's the best model, it is asked that anyone choosing to come into this thread will please be respectful in dealing with the topic before speaking. Those who feel there are different models to consider that may be better, by all means share any articles or reviews you feel are relevant and I'd love to discuss them. Blessings

Currently, you are violating the OP discussion since you haven't honored the discussion topic or addressed the article that was brought up/referenced consistently. As it is, Responses were already given - and as said before, you already showed inability to do honest discussion on what was stated. You already avoided the context of the video when spreading a direct falsehood claiming that others were claiming the galaxy was perpendicular (even though you couldn't quote at any point where others said that and a host of other assertions you claimed they advocated) and instead of dealing with where you were caught in a falsehood, you chose to go for a red herring in distraction by taking about quotes. As it is, you didn't even deal with the video in the OP or what the author of it said - and thus, it is evident you really aren't concerned with dealing with the video topic.

As said before, If others are not arguing a point, don't argue against it and then expect them to answer your argument since it's a caricature - and if actually concerned for the video, get over the attempted distractions you've been trying and deal with the article brought up which addressed the videos in the OP - as see in Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com ). Every single attempt at objection you tried was already covered by him - asSadhu references Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat in his research, stating that it was Bhat that developed the new, Helical model seen in the video from the OP.

• Dr. P. Keshava Bhat

And as it concerns the topic of discussion, Because you have insisted on avoiding Dr. P Keshava Bhat's work which is a focus of the thread, it is rather evident you are unable to stay on topic in the issue and have to argue for things no one was thinking. When you get around to actually dealing with the work Bhat said, let me know. Till then, you're on ignore.

If he ever gets around to explaining the relevance of the direction interstellar wind to trying to make a helix based model of orbits, let me know.

[/serious]

Since you alone were bringing up a false argument that others were pushing interstellar wind, it is again another demonstration of ignorance on what the Helix model is about - what was noted was pointing out clearly was the following when sharing from the review entitled " The Helical Model of The Solar System:

​

[image taken from here]

Think about this for a minute. In this diagram it seems the Solar System travel to the left. When the Earth is also traveling to the left (for half a year) it must go faster than the Sun. ​

This was already discussed with you Yesterday at 10:48 AM when it came to pointing out how interstellar wind was a rabbit trail that did not deal with the issue or what the author of the article being discussed had noted.

The article simply noted the ways that the Earth itself is going in a certain direction - it was not saying at ANY POINT that interstellar wind is always the result of orbital motion of our galaxy (even though interstellar wind has changed directions and has come from differing directions).. As noted in the article entitled " The Helical Model of The Solar System"where reference to interstellar wind was brought up by YOURSELF originally, the author of the article where the picture was found noted "The old Newtonion/Copernican Heliocentric model of our solar system is an unproven theory. A bright fellow named Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat came up with quite a different way to think of our Solar System.e of reasons why I think this model could just be right. First of all, the heliocentrical model has always been presented (especially by NASA) as a “frisbee” model."

There was nothing at any point after that (i.e. the picture) talking on interstellar wind - but because you found a picture talking on it while ignoring the author's point on the picture saying the heliocentrical model has always presented itself as a "frisbee model", you made an argument having little relevance to the discussion- when making it into a discussion about interstellar wind as if that was the context of discussion. That's what we call a caricature - and that's why no one is going to argue on it when that's not the focus. If I have a discussion on the importance of symbols to give meaning - with a picture of a Stop Sign - and you come into discussion claiming "That's a specific shape and I don't see what point shapes have to do with meaning!!!!", then you're choosing to focus on the WRONG things intentionally. It is the same with the article referenced earlier when you ignored the context of the discussion and wrangled about interstellar wind as if it mattered.

As said before in Monday at 1:18 AM, the arguments are not about interstellar wind (nor was that even a dominant focus outside of you harping on it) - as said before, the OP stance is focused on how the solar system isn't 'flat' in the plane of the disc and there is nothing flat about the solar system if you consider it from the thermodynamic center that it is formed around. ...as even Galilean-Newtonian relativity(which is still valid under Einsteinian relativity) explains how the vortex model in the OP is experimentally indistinguishable from a planar (flat) model, but when it comes to failing to see the Vortex model as connected with dynamics of a flat one, that's where things become complicated. And the actual model of the solar system is one of mutual wobbling where the planets and extrasolar bodies pull very slightly on the sun as they all orbit on their elliptical paths (with one of the each ellipses' two foci being centred on the sun).

If unable to deal with that simple fact or other things of focus, again, one has to ask "Why are you here?" as it seems rather plain there's a level of investment for you in the discussion. If you wanted to talk on whatever else you wanted to imagine, there are plenty of other places to discuss and threads you could make. But your presence here and seeming inability to focus on what was of note (i.e. the video in the OP, seeing what the article actually said on it, etc.) is enough to show that there's a direction you may be wanting to thread to go and yet frustration is present because you're unable to get your way. Such is life.

At this point, it is derailing and you need to either address the issue or not be present since no one is forcing you in the thread. Please do not do any more spamming via off-topic comments or repeating the same comments rather than dealing with content.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The time for one orbit is not even a factor.

If, every 24 hours, the earth makes one rotation, then every 24 hours the earth will face the same direction.
Therefore, if the earth in the diagram (middle left) has a person standing in Africa, at noon each day they will face the right hand side of the diagram. Every 24 hours, they will face the same way. So, in one half orbit of the sun, no matter how many days months, years, half days, 1/4 days, it takes, the person in Africa will face to the right. Every 24 hours, the will face to the right. So, in one half orbit, it will be night at noon and in another 1/2 orbit it will be day.

There is no way around this. 1/8th orbit, 1/32 orbit, 56/84's or an orbit, this person will face straight to the right of the page.

As the earth orbits the sun, the time we call noon will gradually move closer, or further from day to night then back again.

Interesting to see the ways that shifting occurs in many distinct ways when it comes to orbit...

Looking at all these videos and trying to wrap my head around the motion of the planets as we follow the sun through it's path got me thinking. Now I cannot figure something out.

Maybe you can help.

Let's break the orbit of the earth around the sun into a basic stationary sun with a flat circular orbit of the earth around that sun.
Now, on the first day of summer, at noon, we face the sun full on.
The earth rotates once every 24 hours
The earth orbits the sun once every year.
So, here is the dilemma. If we are facing straight toward the sun at noon on the summer solstice, will we not be facing directly away from the sun exactly one half year from then? We rotate once per day, that doesn't change. So, every 24 hours we will be facing the same direction in space. However, when it is winter, facing the same way will have us facing away from the sun at what should be noon.

In the diagram below, the earth middle right, the US and Canada faces toward us with the sun to the left. One half year later, the US and Canada face toward us with the sun on our right. Rotating once every 24 hours means that our clocks would continually change or it would be totally dark at noon every half year.

Can someone explain this?

Intriguing argument and it definitely adds to the discussion of how complex orbit can be...

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

If, every 24 hours, the earth makes one rotation, then every 24 hours the earth will face the same direction.

Hmmm, perhaps you are confusing sidereal time and solar time. The Earth does not make one rotation every 24 hours. It makes one rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds.

However, solar noon occurs every 24 hours.

This is because, as the Earth rotates on its axis, it also moves around the sun. So, in the time it takes the Earth to rotate on its axis, it has moved about 1 degree around the sun so it has to rotate more than once in order to face the sun again.

The time for one orbit is not even a factor.

Yes it is, because you are trying to count half orbits. Look how many times you say half orbit in the following section:

Therefore, if the earth in the diagram (middle left) has a person standing in Africa, at noon each day they will face the right hand side of the diagram. Every 24 hours, they will face the same way. So, in one half orbit of the sun, no matter how many days months, years, half days, 1/4 days, it takes, the person in Africa will face to the right. Every 24 hours, the will face to the right. So, in one half orbit, it will be night at noon and in another 1/2 orbit it will be day.

(Emphasis mine)

How long is a half orbit?

A half orbit is 182.625 solar days.

So...lets say it is solar noon on June 21st. Now, what day and time will it be when the Earth is on the opposite side of the sun from that moment?

June 21st @ noon + 182 days and 15 hours = 3 am on December 21.


So, emphatically, it will not be solar noon (the time we measure with our clocks) after one half orbit.

As the earth orbits the sun, the time we call noon will gradually move closer, or further from day to night then back again.

No, that is incorrect. The length of a solar day is 24 hours +/- 30 seconds. Our day has 24 hours in it.

Lets say its solar noon today and the sun is high in the sky.

24 hours later, its noon again. The sun is high in the sky.
24 hours later, its noon again. The sun is high in the sky.
24 hours later, its noon again. The sun is high in the sky.
And so on.

There is no drift.

(Note: there actually is some small drift of about +/- 15 minutes throughout the year, as I stated before. Where I live, solar noon occurs anywhere from 1:15 pm to 1:45 pm. This is due to precession, not length of day)

 

[Michael]

The time for one orbit is not even a factor.

If, every 24 hours, the earth makes one rotation, then every 24 hours the earth will face the same direction.
Therefore, if the earth in the diagram (middle left) has a person standing in Africa, at noon each day they will face the right hand side of the diagram. Every 24 hours, they will face the same way. So, in one half orbit of the sun, no matter how many days months, years, half days, 1/4 days, it takes, the person in Africa will face to the right. Every 24 hours, the will face to the right. So, in one half orbit, it will be night at noon and in another 1/2 orbit it will be day.

There is no way around this. 1/8th orbit, 1/32 orbit, 56/84's or an orbit, this person will face straight to the right of the page.

As the earth orbits the sun, the time we call noon will gradually move closer, or further from day to night then back again.

The orbit time *is* a factor, and LRLRL is correct that your confusion isn't just related to the difference between sidreal and solar days, it's also related to the fact that 1/2 of an orbit (or a whole one) isn't divisible by an *even*/whole number of days. A whole yearly cycle takes about an extra 1/4 day, hence the whole leap year concept. *If* the Earth's full orbit took exactly an even number of solar days to complete, your confusion would be related to the sidereal/solar concept of a day, but a full orbit is *not* divisible by an exactly equal number of days, so LRLRL is correct that you're also confused on that issue as well.

 

[Michael]

Galaxy is definitely complex...especially as it concerns the impact on our days.

The movement patterns of objects in space are rather complex compared to the simplified models we all introduced to as children, particularly when we start trying to describe that movement of our solar system relative to a vantage point that is outside of the galaxy that we're located in. The whole concept of planets that orbit around a sun which itself orbits around a massive object at the core of our galaxy is a little tricky to wrap one's head around. The orientation issues are indeed very complicated for the reasons that are being discussed in this thread.

 

[[serious]]

​

Since you alone were bringing up a false argument that others were pushing interstellar wind, it is again another demonstration of ignorance on what the Helix model is about - what was noted was pointing out clearly was the following when sharing from the review entitled " The Helical Model of The Solar System:

​

[image taken from here]

Think about this for a minute. In this diagram it seems the Solar System travel to the left. When the Earth is also traveling to the left (for half a year) it must go faster than the Sun. ​

This was already discussed with you Yesterday at 10:48 AM when it came to pointing out how interstellar wind was a rabbit trail that did not deal with the issue or what the author of the article being discussed had noted.

Finally a little clearer of an answer (I think). If I'm reading this right, you think that talking about interstellar wind will confuse people into thinking that the wind is indicative of our direction of travel? Also, if talking about interstellar wind is a rabbit hole, why did you bring it up to start with? (hey look, that same question I've been asking since you first referenced interstellar wind!)

If your point is just that, wouldn't a model showing both the interstellar wind and direction of motion do far better? I mean, just saying that in a sentence or two without the ginormous block quotes reposted for the umpteenth time would have gotten the point across much quicker, especially since that was the exact point I was bringing up.

The article simply noted the ways that the Earth itself is going in a certain direction - it was not saying at ANY POINT that interstellar wind is always the result of orbital motion of our galaxy (even though interstellar wind has changed directions and has come from differing directions).. As noted in the article entitled " The Helical Model of The Solar System"where reference to interstellar wind was brought up by YOURSELF originally, the author of the article where the picture was found noted "The old Newtonion/Copernican Heliocentric model of our solar system is an unproven theory. A bright fellow named Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat came up with quite a different way to think of our Solar System.e of reasons why I think this model could just be right. First of all, the heliocentrical model has always been presented (especially by NASA) as a “frisbee” model."

Frisbee model how? Frisbee in that the planets lie roughly along a plane? Because that's accurate and was an error in video 1 you posted (again, check at 55 seconds in. You an clearly see that it renders the planets as trailing the sun both in the foreground and background.)

If you are instead saying that the direction of motion with respect to the galaxy is ever represented as edge on, I'd need a source for that, because as you seemed to be acknowledging above, that image doesn't show anything indicative about our motion with respect to the galaxy.

I'll note again though that in a few dozen million years, we will be in a part of our galactic orbit in which we ARE moving edge on with respect to the galaxy.

There was nothing at any point after that (i.e. the picture) talking on interstellar wind - but because you found a picture talking on it while ignoring the author's point on the picture saying the heliocentrical model has always presented itself as a "frisbee model", you made an argument having little relevance to the discussion- when making it into a discussion about interstellar wind as if that was the context of discussion.

Are you trying to say I posted the picture depicting interstellar wind? You brought it up in post #8. In post #9 is where I asked you what the relevance of the picture was. Now it appears you are saying that you brought it up to point out how stellar wind wasn't indicative of our direction of motion in the galaxy.

f I have a discussion on the importance of symbols to give meaning - with a picture of a Stop Sign - and you come into discussion claiming "That's a specific shape and I don't see what point shapes have to do with meaning!!!!", then you're choosing to focus on the WRONG things intentionally. It is the same with the article referenced earlier when you ignored the context of the discussion and wrangled about interstellar wind as if it mattered.

If someone thinks that indicating wind direction is a measure of direction of travel, they have no understanding of astronomy, and very limited understanding of how wind works on earth. As far as ignoring context, there was virtually no context when you brought it up, and what there was made it appear you thought interstellar wind was indicative of the direction of travel. After posting the image, you said: "In this diagram it seems the Solar System travel to the left."

I asked why the direction of the interstellar wind would be relevant to the direction of travel in the galaxy, and you've sprayed out massive block quotes, copy pastes, and an unending stream of youtube videos instead of just giving a simple brief response.

Again, if someone thinks that wind coming from the left means makes it seem like you are moving towards the left, they don't really understand wind, interstellar or otherwise.

 

[JacksBratt]

I stated .......

So, what you are saying is that we say the earth rotates once per 24 hours, by our clocks and time pieces, but it actually rotates once per every 23 hours and 56 minutes.

Then you reply with this....

Yes. The solar day is approximately 24 hours. There is some variance of approximately 30 seconds which can accumulate to 30 minute variances throughout the year.

And this......

Yea, the sidereal day is irrelevant to your confusion though. I'm worried that Michael's post about the sidereal day has only confused you more.

and reinforce it here....

The solar day is 24 hours +/- 30 seconds. So, every 24 hours, you will be facing the sun again.

Now you say......

Hmmm, perhaps you are confusing sidereal time and solar time. The Earth does not make one rotation every 24 hours. It makes one rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds.

Due to my confusion, I think I will stick with...

So, what you are saying is that we say the earth rotates once per 24 hours, by our clocks and time pieces,

but it actually rotates once per every 23 hours and 56 minutes.

This would mean every day we face a little further to the direction of rotation. Actually, we lag a bit. We lag 4 minutes in time behind the actual rotation day.

This maintains a slow constant drift in the position of any point on earth in relation to the sun which maintains the time of day with morning and night as we perceive it.

So by our clocks, 24 hours will maintain the earth time we call "noon" always facing the sun, as it orbits the sun?

Which I understood in the first place.

Phewf.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

serious,

This is the last time I am going to say this, as stated before:

As said before, If others are not arguing a point, don't argue against it and then expect them to answer your argument since it's a caricature - and if actually concerned for the video, get over the attempted distractions you've been trying and deal with the article brought up which addressed the videos in the OP - as see in Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com )

.....At this point, it is derailing and you need to either address the issue or not be present since no one is forcing you in the thread. Please do not do any more spamming via off-topic comments or repeating the same comments rather than dealing with content.

If you cannot deal with a simple article and instead have to ramble about arguments no one is focused on, then you're chasing a caricature and that is not respectful. This thread has a focus - and if you don't want to deal with it, of course. Make another thread - but going off topic on this one is not going to fly.

Finally a little clearer of an answer (I think). If I'm reading this right, you think that talking about interstellar wind will confuse people into thinking that the wind is indicative of our direction of travel? Also, if talking about interstellar wind is a rabbit hole, why did you bring it up to start with? (hey look, that same question I've been asking since you first referenced interstellar wind!)

If your point is just that, wouldn't a model showing both the interstellar wind and direction of motion do far better? I mean, just saying that in a sentence or two without the ginormous block quotes reposted for the umpteenth time would have gotten the point across much quicker, especially since that was the exact point I was bringing up. Frisbee model how? Frisbee in that the planets lie roughly along a plane? Because that's accurate and was an error in video 1 you posted (again, check at 55 seconds in. You an clearly see that it renders the planets as trailing the sun both in the foreground and background.)

[/QUOTE]Again, as you are unable to deal with what the author of the article noted (As pointed out in Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com ) and instead focus on Aesthetics as your excuse, there's no need with deflection in your comments:

As you seem fixated on the issue of interstellar wind, I repeat: Wind is an indication of direction and there's little need for anyone to be intellectually dishonest on the matter. This has been noted consistently at several points, so you speaking in avoidance on the matter means little when it comes to addressing what others in astronomy or science have said. And other physicists have noted THIS plainly when it comes to wind direction changing or us moving through the galactic cloud currently and shifting in time (as already noted in Tuesday at 10:48 AM#26):

• The Galactic Environment of the Sun - American Scientist
• The interaction of solar and interstellar winds ... - ADS
  
  
• New Scientist: Solar system caught in an interstellar tempest
  
  
• What do we know about the local interstellar medium? - University of New Hampshire?

As noted again for excerpt when it comes to the reality of wind determining direction (just as we say interstellar winds come from the direction of Scorpio currently even though those winds have shifted):

Our “neighborhood” in the Milky Way lies just inside one of the galaxy’s great spiral arms, the Orion Arm. The majority of the brightest stars are distributed along a section of sky known as Gould’s Belt (dashed ellipse), which also marks the distribution of the nearby star-forming regions in the Orion spiral arm. Stellar winds from these star-forming regions—such as the Scorpius-Centaurus association—push “shells” of interstellar material into the sun’s path. The sun is currently on the edge of such a shell (not visible at this scale). The actions of interstellar winds and the sun’s own motion through the galaxy may alter the sun’s local galactic environment on time scales as brief as a few thousand years. The author discusses what space scientists know about the interaction between the solar system and its changing galactic environment. (Courtesy of the National Geographic Society. Adapted from the supplement to the October 1999 issue of National Geographic.)​

​

Interstellar winds come from certain directions and impact our motion. It is simplistic in argumentation trying to argue "Well, if Winds come from the South, I guess that must mean you think your home is travelling South as well!!!!" since a object STATIONARY does not move in the direction wind is coming from...but with the Sun itself moving, interstellar winds coming from a direction and pushing interstellar material into our galaxy does not mean that our galaxy/planets are now somehow in that same direction. It simply means there's a point where things are coming from and it is impacting us as we are going in a direction/moving actively - sometimes in the direction of where interstellar winds are coming from and other times in opposite directions.

And we've already discussed earlier on how scientists determined our OWN position by examining the direction of solar winds, ignoring that shows an ignorance of astronomy.
As another noted, "Like the wind adjusting course in the middle of a storm, scientists have discovered that the particles streaming into the solar system from interstellar space have most likely changed direction over the last 40 years.... Such information can help us map out our place within the galaxy surrounding us, and help us understand our place in space."

From Earth’s perspective, the interstellar wind flows in from a point just above the constellation Scorpius. Results from 11 spacecraft over 40 years show that the exact direction has changed some 4 to 9 degrees since the 1970s.
Image Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
​

...the direction of the interstellar wind has changed some 4 to 9 degrees over the last 40 years. “Previously we thought the local interstellar medium was very constant, but these results show that it is highly dynamic, as is the heliosphere’s interaction with it,” said David McComas, IBEX principal investigator at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas....While the reason for – and, indeed, the exact timing of – the shift is still unclear, Frisch pointed out that scientists know our solar system is close to the edge of the local interstellar cloud. Such an area of the galaxy might experience turbulence, and as we hurtle through space, the heliosphere could be exposed to different directions of wind. While the scientists don’t yet know for sure how the direction switch happened, the team believes that additional observations should ultimately explain its cause, giving us even more information about the galaxy that surrounds us.

The solar system moves through a local galactic cloud at a speed of 50,000 miles per hour, creating an interstellar wind of particles, some of which can travel all the way toward Earth to provide information about our neighborhood.
Image Credit: NASA/Adler/U. Chicago/Wesleyan
For more information about the IBEX mission, visit: www.nasa.gov/ibex



As solar wind pushes out against the interstellar medium, it creates a bubble known as the heliosphere; the boundary between the two is known as the heliopause. The termination shock is where the solar wind slows as it presses against more of the interstellar medium, which also raises the plasma's temperature. The bow wave is where the interstellar medium material piles up in front of our heliosphere, similar to water in front of a moving boat
​

Complaining about a quote from an author explaining a stance when you're unable to actually deal with what was stated is slothful in regards to addressing an argument. Complaining about a quote being big when the fact of the matter is that others have handled things bigger with far more ease (as if you're somehow unable to read because of someone giving something less than 3 paragraphs/a middle-school response essay excerpt) is pointless since it is diversionary - you were unwilling to actually read the quote given and take responsibility for where you already did not want to address the facts. Giving an extensive post about what you feel on solar wind and ignoring the OP topic before commenting is not going to be accepted - especially when what was stated was EXACTLY what was shared before in the beginning and every ad-hominem you gave has already been covered.

​

As said in the OP from the beginning:

If anyone would like to participate in the thread, please keep in mind the discussion will be centered on the video itself dealing with the Helic Model and the author of the video in what he has shared on the matter. Any questions or desires for clarity can be seen in first choosing to deal with what the author of the video has said - and to keep from going off topic or any kind of discussions not focused on seeing what's the best model, it is asked that anyone choosing to come into this thread will please be respectful in dealing with the topic before speaking. Those who feel there are different models to consider that may be better, by all means share any articles or reviews you feel are relevant and I'd love to discuss them. Blessings

Those are the boundaries/rules for discussion and the last time I am going to state the matter (before we take it further). When the focus of discussion is an excerpt from an article or a video and it is shared what the conversation is about, that is context of discussion. When the original context is avoided, it is repeated since the focus of discussion.Coming into a thread avoiding the topic to bring up side issues is considered drive-by commentary and in some places it has been seen as trolling.

AND as it concerns the issue, I repeat what was said by the author of the video in the OP (in excerpt) in Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com

:

- The angle with the Galaxy is 60 degrees! At 2:55 in the video I show how this could be the result of the upward angle of the Sun’s path.



- The sun’s path around the Galaxy itself is not helical! That may be. It’s surely not a straight line, we most certainly travel above and below the galactic plane, and I would not be surprised if there were more components to this pattern. Some say it is, and connect this to electromagnetism. But it is certainly not ‘mainstream’ to think this way.

- Our solar system does not have a tail! Well, according to NASA, space.com and DiscoverMagazine, it kind of does.

- It’s only a change in frame of reference! In a way, yes. But can it be “all wrong” and at the same timeonly a change of perspective? The confusing part is that some claim the helical model is “nothing new”, and other claim it’s “all wrong”. Go figure.



Our Solar System is a Vortex showed the helical patterns of the planets over time and connected it with other helical patterns found elsewhere.

- The planets are in the wrong order! Yes, I totally screwed up two orbits right before rendering the video. Out of millions of viewers maybe 50 noticed, but they’re right. But, this should not make you not see the point.

- It’s a helix, not a vortex! Maybe, but you get the point, right? Also this should not make you not see the point.

- The sun is not like a comet! Well, it kind of is, actually. Even NASA used the term “like a comet“.

- The heliocentric model is not “wrong”! I agree that to a certain degree it is a matter of “frame of reference”, but I am still of the opinion that gives a “wrong” impression, or “incomplete” for that matter. I’m willing to take it down a notch and say there’s more to reality than the heliocentric dinner-plate diagrams. Fair enough?

- The sun does not lead the planets! In this case, you comment on the wrong video. It’s the other video that demonstrates the cone shaped model. After reading the Plait article a lot of folks rushed to comment what they just read (about 24 times “all wrong”), not even noticing that in this video the planets are nicely lined up.

- The angle with the Galaxy is 60 degrees, not 90! There is no galaxy in this video, so what angle? Maybe the angle relative to the travel direction, but more on that later. Again, reading an article, rushing, blabla, and not even looking closely.

...
Out of all these wacky ideas in the first two videos there’s only one that’s most important to me. No, it’s not whether the solar system’s path is a wobble or a helix. No, it’s not whether the sun ‘leads’ the planets or not. No, it’s not the ‘pictures of leaves’. As this guy Ché Pasa understood right away, it’s the impressionthat the standard diagram gives.

It is how we see the solar system in our mind’s eye.

For me, the difference between a stationary looking dinner plate model and this dynamic, spiraling model was too huge to ignore. If you ask anyone what they see when they think of the solar system, they will probably describe something like this:

​

Obviously, I think there’s much more to it than that. Better yet, I think the helical model is quite provable. So, I decided to make another video demonstrating this helical pattern, but this time without the ‘wacky claims’. Just to get the point across: we’re moving, folks! I decided to dial it down a notch, leave out all the debatable details, no furious claims, no stepping on toes, no ‘pictures of leaves’, just the helical model. And make it art.

Here is Solar System 2.0 – a ‘new’ way of looking at our solar system. Sure, the knowledge that we’re moving may have been out there somewhere… but not the image.

G..

​

C’mon, now don’t tell me this was exactly how you always imagined it was.

Did you notice that from 2:05 you can actually see BOTH models? I included this shot just to show how dramatic this ‘change of perspective’ can be. Here’s the heliocentric model put into a helical frame of reference:

Although this is kind of “my own interpretation” of the 60 degree angle (no, not again!) it could work. But even if you disagree, this should not make you not see the point.​

Also, did you notice there were no ‘wacky claims’ and no ‘pictures of leaves’? Don’t get me wrong here, I still believe it’s all connected, still read David Icke, still believe other woowoo stuff – it’s just not in this video. So what I would like is to see this video to be judged by its contents, and not to be debunked because the author ‘has David Icke on his site’.



“Peer review #01″

I recently had an email conversation with Rhys Taylor, an astrophysicist who also wrote an article about the first video. He’s seems like quite a nice guy with a great sense of humor. And he actually managed to see past the wacky stuff and notice something of a point. He also made his own version, and pointed out that there were similarities:

​

He explained to me how it all had worked from ‘their’ perspective, and why everyone reacted the way they did.

“I don’t think it’s fair to say that discrediting the other stuff on your website was not relevant. You made quite an explicit link between the motion of the planets and DNA and other organic structures. In effect, you claimed that your alternative source model provides evidence for a pseudo-scientific idea about the Fibonacci sequence. That was never going to go down well“.
But he also wrote: “I did, of course, get extremely annoyed by the promotion of this nonsensical alternative [cone shaped] model, but I wanted to make it absolutely clear that this helical-path business is perfectly correct.”

Sure, and I explained to him how it all had worked from my perspective, and why I made this new video. He blogged about this conversation here.

Here are some selective quotes from our conversation:

Rhys: “First, you presented the idea of helical paths as though it were some revolutionary new model. You could have very easily checked with more or less any astronomer who would have told you that we already know this is the case. True, a shiny animation did not exist to show it, but that, as I said, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t known. That doesn’t mean the video wasn’t worthwhile either, only that it should have been expressed differently. […] I do think Plait was right to call you out – even if he missed a pretty big point that the motion of the Solar System is rarely illustrated. Most of the problems with the original could, and should, have been easily prevented. It’s still a very nice rendering of the motion of the Solar System, but in context it was saying, “I’m an unqualified DJ who’s overturned all of astronomy“.”

Me: “The point is how people ‘see’ the solar system. Although the helical paths may have been known to astronomers and astrophysicists (and part of the public), what people ‘see’ when they think about the solar system is in my opinion incomplete. I doubt even astronomers see the solar system like the dynamic helical system as shown in my video, even though they may have all the facts that support it. I’m really hoping this “Solar System 2.0″ concept is getting the point across without shooting the idea in the foot again. […] Since I personally experienced that “aha moment” when I first found out the diagrams I had been watching all my life told only half the story, I’m willing to be that “nutter” as long as this becomes common knowledge.”

Me: “And how come, even though the standard model is ‘correct’ and ‘complete’… you had to come up with a completely new animation to show the old model is okay? Because there was no such video… and that’s what I find annoying. “Science” quickly jumps onto the “it’s all wrong” bandwagon… and then you have to go and tinker to personally make the first “correct” version (oh the angle is a bit different) The complete model should have been out there all along! Noo, let’s debunk DjSadhu, and then make the correct version - for the first time!”

Rhys: “Well, as I wrote in the article : ” What honestly surprises me is that this is so incredibly popular on the internet. If you weren’t aware that the Sun orbits the center of the galaxy – which, since the planets orbit it, necessitates that they trace out helical paths – then the education system has seriously failed. I have been accused of sounding jealous on this point, but unfortunately for me my statement is absolutely true. Honestly, it was so obvious to me that the planets trace out helical paths that I’m still amazed people find this such a revelation. Any object moving in a circular path around a moving center MUST trace out a helix. I find this so obvious I really don’t get why it needs to be stated, let alone visualised. But apparently I’m wrong, and it does. That’s why people like me and Plait are going to get pretty riled if you (intentionally or otherwise) claim that there’s something wrong with the heliocentric model – there isn’t, it’s purely a choice of reference frame.[…] The fact that the Sun and the Solar System orbit the galactic center ought to be considered as ordinary as the Earth going round the Sun. Your latest video has my full support. You’re clearly correct that large numbers of people aren’t aware that the Solar System moves through space – or if they are, they haven’t realised exactly what that means. Your video is a great way of demonstrating that.” (emphasis added)

Full article here.​

If you are instead saying that the direction of motion with respect to the galaxy is ever represented as edge on, I'd need a source for that, because as you seemed to be acknowledging above, that image doesn't show anything indicative about our motion with respect to the galaxy.

I'll note again though that in a few dozen million years, we will be in a part of our galactic orbit in which we ARE moving edge on with respect to the galaxy. Are you trying to say I posted the picture depicting interstellar wind? You brought it up in post #8. In post #9 is where I asked you what the relevance of the picture was. Now it appears you are saying that you brought it up to point out how stellar wind wasn't indicative of our direction of motion in the galaxy. If someone thinks that indicating wind direction is a measure of direction of travel, they have no understanding of astronomy, and very limited understanding of how wind works on earth. As far as ignoring context, there was virtually no context when you brought it up, and what there was made it appear you thought interstellar wind was indicative of the direction of travel. After posting the image, you said: "In this diagram it seems the Solar System travel to the left."

I asked why the direction of the interstellar wind would be relevant to the direction of travel in the galaxy, and you've sprayed out massive block quotes, copy pastes, and an unending stream of youtube videos instead of just giving a simple brief response.

Again, if someone thinks that wind coming from the left means makes it seem like you are moving towards the left, they don't really understand wind, interstellar or otherwise.

Besides the fact that you are showing (Again) why you tend to avoid dealing with argument in favor of focusing on majoring on minors (As discussing a block quote has little to do with addressing the content of a quote), you are again off topic and will not be told again on the issue if you keep spraying with ad-hominem discussion and spamming that is akin to trolling since personal discussion is an inability to discuss logically an issue.

And trying to harp on a red herring with appeal to ridicule is pointless as there was no 'unending stream"/its a weak argument when you couldn't even deal with ONE video in the OP - nor was your logic sound since you were already given brief responses and you avoided them. As it is, there is no formula claiming brief is valid and you chose to excuse yourself from logically dealing with an argument since you already did circular reasoning in refusing to address the article in discussion.

Bunny trails are not going to be a focus in the thread and you've given plenty of them thus far instead of dealing with a SIMPLE article from the author of the video - as seen in the following:

• Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com ).

You skipped over that as well as the videos and you have little business being in the thread.

As said in the OP from the beginning for the parameters:

If anyone would like to participate in the thread, please keep in mind the discussion will be centered on the video itself dealing with the Helic Model and the author of the video in what he has shared on the matter. Any questions or desires for clarity can be seen in first choosing to deal with what the author of the video has said - and to keep from going off topic or any kind of discussions not focused on seeing what's the best model, it is asked that anyone choosing to come into this thread will please be respectful in dealing with the topic before speaking. Those who feel there are different models to consider that may be better, by all means share any articles or reviews you feel are relevant and I'd love to discuss them. Blessings

​

Those are the boundaries/rules for discussion and the last time I am going to state the matter (before we take it further).


You repeating the same thing does not change where the focus of the article is of focus - and it does not show you understand astronomy when avoiding directly what other scientists have said on interstellar wind indicating direction of motion, so again it is your choice to avoid what others in science have already said on the issue. It is also another falsehood when claiming no context was given since you already avoided (and are still avoiding - counter the OP) the article for discussion as it concerns the author of the videos in the OP. Because you have chosen to address the author's thoughts, you have little business discussing where context was needed so move on. You claimed it was not addressed, despite the fact that you directly avoided where the issue was already covered by myself when you avoided it in Saturday at 8:43 AM - and then chose to push a false argument again on the issue despite the fact that only you pushed on harping about solar wind (as noted in Tuesday at 3:36 AM#16 and Tuesday at 10:48 AM#26 ) instead of responsibly dealing with the context the article was about that had the image of solar wind. It is again slothful on your part arguing on something no one was saying and then asking "Please explain"

And once again, what you are saying has zero to do with the discussion when you're unable to deal with the content of the OP or - as it is making excuses focusing on a quote when that was already noted in the OP to be the focus...and as said before, it is falsehood trying to bring up silliness about interstellar wind when you were the one bringing it up. Until you can square honestly with that simple point, you are again wrangling over a caricature and there is zero issue discussing further on the issue when the article pertaining to the OP is the focus and EVERY SINGLE objection (distracting as they are) was already addressed.

Seriously, get over it and quit derailing since you are already avoiding sources and need to move on if you're going to be disrespectful to the OP topic.

As said before, If others are not arguing a point, don't argue against it and then expect them to answer your argument since it's a caricature - and if actually concerned for the video, get over the attempted distractions you've been trying and deal with the article brought up which addressed the videos in the OP - as see in Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com ). Every single attempt at objection you tried was already covered by him - as Sadhu references Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat in his research, stating that it was Bhat that developed the new, Helical model seen in the video from the OP.

• Dr. P. Keshava Bhat

And as it concerns the topic of discussion, Because you have insisted on avoiding Dr. P Keshava Bhat's work which is a focus of the thread, it is rather evident you are unable to stay on topic in the issue and have to argue for things no one was thinking. When you get around to actually dealing with the work Bhat said, let me know. Till then, you're on ignore.

As said before in Monday at 1:18 AM, the arguments are not about interstellar wind (nor was that even a dominant focus outside of you harping on it) - as said before, the OP stance is focused on how the solar system isn't 'flat' in the plane of the disc and there is nothing flat about the solar system if you consider it from the thermodynamic center that it is formed around. ...as even Galilean-Newtonian relativity(which is still valid under Einsteinian relativity) explains how the vortex model in the OP is experimentally indistinguishable from a planar (flat) model, but when it comes to failing to see the Vortex model as connected with dynamics of a flat one, that's where things become complicated. And the actual model of the solar system is one of mutual wobbling where the planets and extrasolar bodies pull very slightly on the sun as they all orbit on their elliptical paths (with one of the each ellipses' two foci being centred on the sun).

If unable to deal with that simple fact or other things of focus, again, one has to ask "Why are you here?" as it seems rather plain there's a level of investment for you in the discussion. If you wanted to talk on whatever else you wanted to imagine, there are plenty of other places to discuss and threads you could make. But your presence here and seeming inability to focus on what was of note (i.e. the video in the OP, seeing what the article actually said on it, etc.) is enough to show that there's a direction you may be wanting to thread to go and yet frustration is present because you're unable to get your way. Such is life.

At this point, it is derailing and you need to either address the issue or not be present since no one is forcing you in the thread. Please do not do any more spamming via off-topic comments or repeating the same comments rather than dealing with content.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The movement patterns of objects in space are rather complex compared to the simplified models we all introduced to as children, particularly when we start trying to describe that movement of our solar system relative to a vantage point that is outside of the galaxy that we're located in. The whole concept of planets that orbit around a sun which itself orbits around a massive object at the core of our galaxy is a little tricky to wrap one's head around. The orientation issues are indeed very complicated for the reasons that are being discussed in this thread.

Very true

 

[[serious]]

Wind is an indication of direction and there's little need for anyone to be intellectually dishonest on the matter.

No, wind is not indicative of the direction of motion. When the wind blows from the north, is your house then traveling north?