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):
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 o
r 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:
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 o
r 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.
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. P
lease do not do any more spamming via off-topic comments or repeating the same comments rather than dealing with content.