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

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I stated .......



Then you reply with this....



And this......



and reinforce it here....




Now you say......



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



Which I understood in the first place.

Phewf.

Yea sorry about that. Confusion all around...

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

This all seems to me to be less of a new "model" of the Solar System, but, rather, a rendering that illuminates the complex paths taken by all of the different bodies in the Solar System due to our motion through space and relative to other bodies.

All very interesting to be sure, but hardly paradigm shifting. One could argue different renderings in many fields of science to be too simplistic and "not telling the whole story" and what not. Look at any rendering of a cell and with clearly defined, distinct structures moving in seemingly ordered ways. Any cell biologist can tell you that the insides of cells are not so orderly and are ruled by chaos and probability. Less like a factory and more like static on an old TV. This doesn't render the models wrong. It just illuminates that the models don't necessarily represent the most realistic vision of what's really going on. But then again that's kind of the point. To simplify in order to gain understanding.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This all seems to me to be less of a new "model" of the Solar System, but, rather, a rendering that illuminates the complex paths taken by all of the different bodies in the Solar System due to our motion through space and relative to other bodies.

All very interesting to be sure, but hardly paradigm shifting. One could argue different renderings in many fields of science to be too simplistic and "not telling the whole story" and what not. Look at any rendering of a cell and with clearly defined, distinct structures moving in seemingly ordered ways. Any cell biologist can tell you that the insides of cells are not so orderly and are ruled by chaos and probability. Less like a factory and more like static on an old TV. This doesn't render the models wrong. It just illuminates that the models don't necessarily represent the most realistic vision of what's really going on. But then again that's kind of the point. To simplify in order to gain understanding.

A rendering can very much be enlightening when it presents things in a differing way, even as the way it is presented is parallel to the ways other models are presented.

What you noted was what was pointed out in the OP when it came to citing what the author of the videos in the OP stated directly with him illustrating complexity. There are others reacting to things presented in the videos in the OP which were never even in view by those creating them when it came to their stances...

For people who skipped over addressing what he stated directly in his article entitled Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com (which I continue to reference back to if anyone wants to know the basis behind a model), I appreciate how the man noted he was never pushing anything to be a new "Model" since the focus was on showing complexity and illustrating that things were never simplistic. His focus was never on older models being WRONG since he actually made videos on the other models that others felt were good....but the reactions others can give when others are discussing differing ways of illustration tend to illustrate where what are passionate for is actually seeing something presented only one way. Thus, people coming into discussion with their own leanings/not being willing to see where others were coming from can cloud a lot of things.

This has happened when others present models that differ in illustration from what many are used to and we have to understand that at all times.

 

[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.

I think as long as it is understood that planets with differing orbits and galaxies on top of that will never be shown fully, people can chill whenever discussion occurs and referencing on the matter occurs. The issue as discussed in the OP always comes down to realizing how intricate and beautiful our Solar System is and we have to remember how much we are not able to see all aspects of the greatness in it

Movement patterns are a complicated reality.

 

[Michael]

I think as long as it is understood that planets with differing orbits and galaxies on top of that will never be shown fully, people can chill whenever discussion occurs and referencing on the matter occurs. The issue as discussed in the OP always comes down to realizing how intricate and beautiful our Solar System is and we have to remember how much we are not able to see all aspects of the greatness in it

Movement patterns are a complicated reality.

When you start adding in the rotation pattern of the Milky Way galaxy inside it's local galaxy cluster, the movement patterns become almost mind numbing in terms of complexity.

 

[[serious]]

Movement patterns are a complicated reality.

That we can agree on.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think I am going to withdraw from this discussion, with a couple of final remarks:

Spoiler

1. I well understand what "the former" means, but this is "the former" in your post:

Central point was already noted in the OP - I am not going to repeat more times if it was not addressed the first time since the focus was on the helic model of the universe and it giving a different perspective and discussing the validity of that model - or disagreeing with it and sharing other models....AND seeing what best fits while appreciating the nature of the universe

- It is a concatenation of clauses that run on interminably and thus lack clarity. In such a case it is unreasonable of you to decline an attempt at clarification.

2. You accuse me of not wishing to understand you when the reverse is true. I am at a loss as to why you are being so hostile. If English is your native language then perhaps I have offended you for pointing out that your writing is, at times, incomprehensible. I regret that, I apologise for offending you, but I do not apologise for pointing out that you are not being clear. That is not done in order to put you down, but to help you get your message across. I am disappointed you chose to take my advice and request for help so negatively.

3. You say "...it is hoped there will be not any attempt at being obtuse on the issue...or slowness to address what was already stated clearly in the OP"

Writers do not get to decide whether or not they have been clear. That is a decision made by the reader. This reader, anxious to know what you are proposing, has asked for more clarity. You have declined to provide it.

4. The solar system does pass in a regular and systematic fashion from below the galactic plane to above it during its orbit of the galaxy. If you don't want to call that oscillation, fine, but that is how I have seen it described.

Thank you for such responses as you have given, I only regret that you were not more forthcoming.

I entirely agree with your analysis - it's telling that the OP spends more words criticising your request for clarification and disputing the opacity of his case than it would take to rephrase the main point(s), then posts screeds of copypasta rather than a concise explanation. The hostility is simply counterproductive.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I entirely agree with your analysis - it's telling that the OP spends more words criticising your request for clarification and disputing the opacity of his case than it would take to rephrase the main point(s), then posts screeds of copypasta rather than a concise explanation. The hostility is simply counterproductive.

Clarification was already given when pointing out the article for discussion entitled Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com.

Anyone can do a logical fallacy such as style over substance when choosing to reject an idea by attacking its style and presentation rather than its information content. Criticizing an explanation rather than dealing with a subject is always telling in the inability to actually focus on a subject - and as was already shared earlier:

​

And for more from the author on the first 2 videos, one can go to Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com

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

There is nothing complicated on the OP, nor any need to rephrase anything. We're discussing the videos in the OP and what the author of those videos said on them, as well as other models people think are interesting. It is about others sharing thoughts on the Helical Model - if they are actually interested in it - or sharing on other models they feel are a good way to describe our solar system. It's about sharing in appreciation for how complex our galaxy is and the intricacies behind it when it comes to the way things operate.

Being confused on that simple point /central point does not illustrate much as it pertains to understanding simplicity of argument.

If you don't want to address a video or the videos made on the issue, then you don't need to participate in discussion. You definitely don't need to be asking others to spell out all things for you when you will not address a video or what the author of that video says.

And demanding to have that rephrased or ignoring where it is clarified does not change where clarity was given, with it being willfully obstinate in arguing on things no one is focused on. It doesn't do anything spending more time on the insisting of repeating the same claims rather than dealing with a simple argument since what it shows is that one is not able to deal concretely with resources clarifying issues if they are stuck in having it THEIR way.

Moreover, it is again rather silly talking on copy/paste when the fact was that a concise quote was already given several times - and as said before, the discussion was about the author of the videos and HIS Words. If people ask what the focus of a video is, I will quote his words so that there are no falsehoods as to his intent or where he was coming from. There are several other threads exactly like this where excerpts from an article or a leading figure in science were shared and the discussion centered on that where others respectfully dealt with a quote or came back to it if it was missed. For reference:

• Why Humans are NOT Primates
• No Time, No Age.
• History Reveals Dinosaurs
• Atheistic Scientists Pushing Their Religion

The list goes on....but citing an article in discussion/asking for thoughts on that (as that was part of explanation) is not an issue when actually discussing the content.

Arguing past that would have been seen as pointless since to do so would indicate the quote it

It was also open to anyone else quoting excerpts from scientific reviews on the issue and placing them here as some have already done. Not the first time those things have happened in discussion. So it's rather baseless complaining when the boundaries for such were laid out. If you cannot respect that, then of course you don't have to be present in the thread. It's that simple.

Thus, it would be foolish talking about a quote shared when that was the focus. Of course, when one is already committed to being against a conversation regardless, there are rather pointless things people choose to nit-pick about instead of responsibly dealing with a topic. That happens when there is already a bias...

The article for discussion is clear - as noted in Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com ). The author clarified exactly where he was coming from in his videos and dealt with each and EVERY objection that others in the thread have raised while still claiming to not see an objection addressed. If one does not want to see what he has said, one does not really want clarification and is wasting time.

Thus, one needs to quit speaking of hostility (as rejecting a request is not the same as an ad-hominem comment of someone being hostile). Speaking on it when others take time to clarify and reference back to where discussion lies comes off directly as being hostile in actually addressing what the OP topic was about.

If you are not going to deal with the article, you really have zero business in the thread since it'll always be hostile coming into a discussion, avoiding an article and then doing drive-by commentary as if that is in any way gracious when one could have kept comments to themselves. Commenting further in this thread WITHOUT dealing with OP topic is a violation of the OP topic in refusing to actually deal with the discussion as laid out - and no one is forcing you here. If you are not going to deal directly with what the author of the videos noted, then you're not on topic for discussion - and choosing or insisting on being in the thread is against rules if you're not going to deal with the discussion.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

That we can agree on.

As stated before, please quit with the off-topic posts and deal with the topic please. This is the subject, here in Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com...

I repeat, the topic is Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com ...dealing with the videos and explanations to objections.

Because you refuse to deal with the article, there's no point commenting now on what you feel we can agree on. Either you want to make the thread of your own focus/content or want to take it off course. Nonetheless, going against the subject of the OP is not respectful when it was laid out. As stated before in the OP:

And for more from the author on the first 2 videos, one can go to Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com

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

And as said clearly when there was an insistence to avoid the article from the author addressing objections:

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.

​

The article for discussion is clear - as noted in olar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com ). Nonetheless, You're still in violation of the OP topic in refusing to actually deal with the discussion as laid out - so again, why are you here? Moreover, do we need to take things further in regards to directly taking things in a derail rather than respecting the OP? If you are not going to deal directly with what the author of the videos noted, then you're not on topic for discussion - and choosing or insisting on being in the thread is against rules if you're not going to deal with the discussion.

If we need to take things further, so be it.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

When you start adding in the rotation pattern of the Milky Way galaxy inside it's local galaxy cluster, the movement patterns become almost mind numbing in terms of complexity.

I appreciate the Helical model for showing in many ways the complexity of how the Milky Way galaxy interacts with our own solar system and for helping to illustrate the ways that other models can be seen together.

As another noted on the issue (in regards to what the author of the videos in the OP stated):

The Solar system actualy have an helicoidal kind of movement on it’s galactic orbit, movement enduced by planetary system but I do not think it is observable from a vision outside (above or below) the galaxy like you present in 2nd part. If it where like that it meaning there in/on the center of the transversal section of the helicoid (witch should be a disk) it is located an large gravitational mass at the distance from the center of the Sun equal with the radius of that disk witch it means (again) entire solar system is on orbit around that gravitationaly central mass and that mass actualy are orbiting the center of the galaxy!

​

​

Is there a specific model that you think best illustrates the complexities of our galaxy?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

When you start adding in the rotation pattern of the Milky Way galaxy inside it's local galaxy cluster, the movement patterns become almost mind numbing in terms of complexity.

The patterns of how the Earth rotates around the Sun alone is intriguing enough

 

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

Please stick to the topic of the thread. Please address your comments toward the content of the post and not the character of the poster.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[[serious]]

As stated before, please quit with the off-topic posts and deal with the topic please. This is the subject, here in Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com...

I repeat, the topic is Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com ...dealing with the videos and explanations to objections.

Because you refuse to deal with the article, there's no point commenting now on what you feel we can agree on. Either you want to make the thread of your own focus/content or want to take it off course. Nonetheless, going against the subject of the OP is not respectful when it was laid out. As stated before in the OP:

​

And as said clearly when there was an insistence to avoid the article from the author addressing objections:

​

The article for discussion is clear - as noted in olar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com ). Nonetheless, You're still in violation of the OP topic in refusing to actually deal with the discussion as laid out - so again, why are you here? Moreover, do we need to take things further in regards to directly taking things in a derail rather than respecting the OP? If you are not going to deal directly with what the author of the videos noted, then you're not on topic for discussion - and choosing or insisting on being in the thread is against rules if you're not going to deal with the discussion.

If we need to take things further, so be it.

Wait, agreeing with you is off topic now?

 

[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.

On the massiveness of the universe...

 

[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.

Something you may find fascinating, as there has been discussion of what our own sun orbits around...Not necessarally a massive star. It could be a brown dwarf, which is harder to detect. This video can give you an idea: