Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.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.
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 itThe 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.
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.I think I am going to withdraw from this discussion, with a couple of final remarks:
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.
Clarification was already given when pointing out the article for discussion entitled Solar System 2.0 & Science Friction | DjSadhu.com.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.
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
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...That we can agree on.
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
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.
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.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 enoughWhen 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.
Wait, agreeing with you is off topic now?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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?