“I’m a Dj, not a scientist damnit!”




Dear Phil,

Thank you for taking the time to write an article that contains some good arguments, and is actually not offending or insulting.
Most comments posted on YouTube by those who are trying to “defend science” are non-descriptive, without argument, insulting and only show the poster’s short attention span and frustration. Not your article, it has been written with some patience, and you at least seem to appreciate my efforts and my goal.
I’m trying to show that we, the solar system and the galaxy are all miraculously part of life… the sad thing is that visitors coming from your article page, will start watching the video with their “debunk glasses” firmly attached to their heads, and will undoubtedly miss a point that they might have gotten otherwise. They proudly repeat after you “there’s so many things wrong”, and they still don’t have any idea what they’re talking about. And by the way, “David Icke is also on his site” is not really a scientific argument.

I am not a scientist, nor do I want to become one. But I do consider myself to be a researcher (and a Dj obviously). Curious as I am, I want to know stuff.
I also find that, for some, science is a kind of religion. If there is “PhD” behind a name, then “he must know” and “you can’t possibly believe you know better than him”. I strongly disagree with that mindset. I am prepared to disagree with anyone, regardless of their title.
I’m also aware of the fact that, if a “real scientist” publishes research that do not match the mainstream scientific belief, they are quickly labeled “pseudo” on Wikipedia. To name a few: Tom Bearden, Dr Judy Wood, Bruce Lipton. That’s this nice thing called “peer review” – it turns science into a democracy.
Luckily I do not suffer from “peer pressure”, I have no funding that can be withdrawn, so I’m free to go ahead and research and find whatever I find.

Having said that, in this case one of my questions was “how do we move through the galaxy”.
And to my surprise (as pointed out by Stephen 431: “good luck finding better illustrations or animations of how our star system is moving“) there was no such animation.
I spent quite some time trying to find a “real scientific model” of some sort, I researched NASA’s archives for diagrams and data, and I could only find bits and snippets, side-views and top-views, but as far as I could tell NOBODY in the history of science & astronomy has even tried to give us “the full picture”.
That led my to ponder the question “do they even know?” So I went ahead and gave it my best shot.
I found out that my findings “resonated” with everything I knew about life so far… so yeah maybe some numbers are off, I accidentally switched two orbits just before rendering, there less up/down motion in one revolution… my point is still my point.

Also, to my surprise most folks were unaware that we even move through space – somehow all the schooling has led them to subconsciously believe that after 365 days the earth returns to the same point in space! This is incredible. Way to school people, science! I’m glad that my helical video at least enlightened some folks on that topic, and that the idea of a “space journey” resonates with some folks.

In the end of the article you state that the video “appeals to some sense of how things should be“. This reminds me of another area of science that has claimed many “pseudo” victims. It’s this thing called… “Life”.
Let’s face it: science has NO clue what life really is. Science also has no answer to the question “why are we here?”. And here’s the catch: it’s IMPOSSIBLE to try and research this area in an honest way, based on science, and come up with any answer… at all. Simply because ANY answer is outside the realm of science, and thus science will reject it.
So for example: if I (regardless whether you agree with the helical model or not) point out the similarity between the helix in DNA (that is one of the keys to human life) and our solar system (which is currently supporting human life), our galaxy (which is currently supporting the solar system).. then “science” will probably respond with skepticism, laughter or insults. I am, however, trying to use science to find meaning in it all.
I’m looking forward to the day that science comes with an explanation for phenomenon like telekineses, telepathy, empathy (although they have discovered “mirror-neurons”, woohoo!), consciousness (tough one) and life or the meaning of life.
So, maybe my video “appeals to some sense of how things should be“, and I’m convinced it has something to do with the refusal of science to cover the areas I just mentioned.
Science is still viewing the Universe as a huge clockwork, made up of matter, and bounded by “rules” and “laws of nature”. I strongly disagree with this view. You cannot leave consciousness out.
I consider myself to be a spiritual person, who believes in a higher consciousness, karma, life after death & spirits. Just like the Mayas, the native American Indians, the Buddhists, the Taoists, the Aboriginals, the African people…. It almost seems like everyone on the planet is spiritual, except science? We are NOT brain cells and skin.

Nikola Tesla: “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”.

Then there are these “rules of physics” and “laws of nature” – they are a man-made concept. Although they are based on scientific observations, they are also based on the assumption that these observations cover “all there is”. They cannot be called “laws”, they should be called what they really are: observations. They only hold up until new observations are made.

So if I summarize your article correctly, these are the errors you find:

– a vortex is not a helix
– the bobbing up and down is not every 26,000 years but every 64 million years
– we travel at 60 degrees, not 90 degrees (although in my galaxy video I correctly display the current 60 degree angle so we can debate on that)
– precession does not affect the sun
– the sun does not ‘lead’ the solar system

Still not bad for a Dj. Since no one else ever tried.

I think we can agree to disagree on the ‘lead’ point. I’m convinced that our solar system is not “flat” (and I’m not just talking about the slight orbital inclination).
I am currently trying to reproduce the retrograde in a “flat” solar system, and it can’t be done. There’s “depth” in the retrograde loop, pointing downwards, and in a flat system this is impossible. However, if I use the “non-flat”, cone-shaped Bhat model (with the sun leading and the planets trailing behind) then I can easily reproduce this observed phenomenon. “The claim that the Sun is at the tip of the solar system with the planets trailing behind is also demonstrably wrong” – well, it can be demonstrated to be right.
Scientist or not – I will post this ‘retrograde animation’ once it’s finished, and yes there will be music 😉

There’s one other thing: there’s this little image in the article:
Spin
Have you ever considered that the earth’s “fixed” tilted axis does not “feel natural”, since the axis always points in one direction?
That it seems “off” with what we know about physics of spinning objects and rotation?
We take this earth axis tilt for face value, because it is the only explanation we have for seasons… but would the earth not rather behave like in the image if it’s axis was tilted?
Just putting this out there. I’m not talking about precession, but about our yearly revolution.

I hope people enjoy my videos, and do not take them for “absolute truth”, but as an incentive to go out there and start researching stuff.
But my goal even more is to show that there is more to science than matter, atoms and clockwork – the Universe is a miraculous place where everything is connected.

DjSadhu

42 thoughts on ““I’m a Dj, not a scientist damnit!”

  1. You are right with the tilt axis, but Phil is pointing that out too. The axis makes one whole turn in 26,000 Years. It is wobbling, but very slowly. Nothing that is noticeable in one human lifespan.

    1. No, I’m talking once a year, not once every 26,000 years. This “fixed angle axis tilt” in the heliocentric model just does not feel right. But it’s ‘all there is’ to explain seasonal change.

  2. A video about movement could have been made without making up forces. “Pursuing knowledge” isn’t making a video that makes a lot of assertions about the world and passing off (most of them) as fact. You pass off a weird belief that scientists just twiddle their thumbs and agree with eachother only when it sounds boring.

    “Also, to my surprise most folks were unaware that we even move through space – somehow all the schooling has led them to subconsciously believe that after 365 days the earth returns to the same point in space!”
    Science led to this conclusion. By classic observation by the same way we use in every day life, we wouldn’t have had evidence to support the conclusion that WE DONT go to the same point every year.

    “Science is still viewing the Universe as a huge clockwork, made up of matter, and bounded by “rules” and “laws of nature”.”
    “I am currently trying to reproduce the retrograde in a “flat” solar system, and it can’t be done.”
    You have more in common with scientists than you seem to admit. Like a scientist, you are comparing a model to observed reality. But, if I might make some guesses, a lifelong misunderstanding of science has led you take any uneducated guess about the world to be equivalent to what scientists do. When people lecture you about “minor details” like “slight orbital inclination” and still think scientists assert the solar system is two-dimensional, you are dismissing a LOT of work done by tens of thousands of people.

    For a completely visual explanation about how retrograde motion works, try dabbling in the software found at http://www.shatters.net/celestia/

  3. See, you can either take the facts, or you can feel about stuff. As long as you ignore the facts, you will not even be a researcher, you are just making stuff up. You can’t bend the universe in a shape you feel good about.

    The earth axis is very slightly tilted and there’s a force acting on the earth that makes the axis go round once every 26,000 years. The axis of the earth is in other ways behaving like a gyrocompass – it’s fixed. Take one of those, place it on the tip of your fingers on turn around once -you will see, the axis of the compass is always pointing the same direction in respect to your environment and seems to go round for you (you are the sun in this experiment – you could feel great so 😉 ).

    1. The gyrocompass makes sense, but how is that different from the spin in the animated gif?
      If it’s just the speed of rotation, then the Earth may not rotate fast enough to be a gyrocompass.
      Part of research is also that you develop a sense for what’s possible and what’s not. So if I see something that feels “off”, I have every right to question and research it.
      Without that “physics sense” you would ignore all those interesting stuff and take everything for granted.
      As a researcher I am driven by those moments of “wait a minute, how can this be? Something’s off” and then trying to figure it out.

  4. But those moments of “wait a minute, how can this be?” did many people already have before you and the answers can be found in any textbook about mechanics or on the wikipedia if you prefer that. It just seems to be a little bit lazy to just burst out with them.

    The earth doesn’t have to rotate “fast” (in respect to what) to behave like a gyroscope because there is no gravitational field in which it can tipple over. And the moon is helping.

    1. Yes of course many people have had those moments before. And yet, science is still correcting itself, discovering new things and new theories for old phenomenon.
      I think it’s healthy to keep questioning. Thanks for the explanation on the gyro 😉

  5. I admire your response to the criticism you’ve been receiving after Phil’s “debunking” on Bad Astronomy. An awesome and scientific thing to do would be if you would present new and revised animations with the insights and pointers that Phil’s rebuttal has provided you with. THAT is science! Taking in new information and making it your own.

    If you would continue your work with nice looking 3d animations and sweet beats but with ever improving models, you are my hero.

  6. “Science is still correcting itself.” That is the key to science! And it’s a Good Thing. As humans, I don’t think we’ll ever be able to have all the answers, but with science, we can continually improve on the answers we have and ask knew questions that we didn’t know to ask. Our knowledge is never static, and we’ll always be “correcting” it. So keep on asking questions, but please be willing to consider that maybe science already has the answers to many of them.

  7. The problem fundamentally is that trying to find scientific meaning by what “feels right” is what leads to nonsense like evolution doesn’t feel right, so creationism must be correct. Then these people go into schools and try to change the scientific curriculum to fit what “feels right” rather than what has been proven and tested scientifically.

    This statement “Also, to my surprise most folks were unaware that we even move through space – somehow all the schooling has led them to subconsciously believe that after 365 days the earth returns to the same point in space!” suggests that you actually are trying to educate. If so, accuracy is important otherwise your work is simply going to lead to people being ignorant in other ways. This is not ideal.

    Leave science to the professionals. If you want to make cool, educational and informative models, fantastic, but I strongly suggest getting a real scientist to consult.

    1. Sure, but I was talking about stuff that DOESN’T “feel right”. That is what triggers curiosity and research. Once you leave anything at “yeah, this feels right” then no further research is required. That is not was I said.

  8. Part of research is also that you develop a sense for what’s possible and what’s not. So if I see something that feels “off”, I have every right to question and research it.

    Another part of research is accepting facts when the evidence overwhelmingly points to one conclusion. Remaining stubborn, because you “feel” differently, isn’t being bold or brave. It’s just being prideful.

    This isn’t a controversial topic. Your assumptions are wrong, and provably so.

  9. I think Phil’s overall point is that your video is very pretty and he hopes now that he’s provided some slightly improved scientific background, that you put it to use in making another gorgeous video based on the updated science.

    I think we’d all love it if you were to work with Phil to create a new video! You are very talented and with his scientific background, you two could be armed with the power to create something both beautiful and scientifically accurate.

  10. wow, your videos completely change my vision of our solar system and of the Universe in general. Keep going! What about an animation of life after death? This would be a very interesting project to develop. Souls must end somewhere…

  11. If you have not proven something wrong in the scientific community, you cannot say things like “this is incorrect” and present what you think is going on. That’s what flipped most people out. Some of them might blindly be protesting you, but you cannot disagree on the fact that you have presented it wrong. You also can’t say things like “Science is still viewing the Universe as a huge clockwork, made up of matter, and bounded by “rules” and “laws of nature”. I strongly disagree with this view. You cannot leave consciousness out.”. Because then you need to tell us why you think this is true. And “it’s just what I think” is unfortunately not a valid statement at this point. Universe is in fact bound by laws of nature, and if you have no way to prove otherwise, your claim is no different than saying “unicorns are true”. I’m sorry, but that’s not how research works. And your suggestion of how science should expand itself is going to happen, and then it will become one of those “natural phenomena”, since we will begin to understand how it actually works. Also remember, things you mention such as “telekinesis, empathy and sympathy are being explained. Guess how? That’s right, by scientific observations, experimenting and further directions.

    Let me tell you something that you have observed about the planets moving around and the helical shape of DNA. DNA obviously does not look like two pieces of helices bound with tiny strings. In fact, DNA consists of hydrogen bonds and many covalent bonds. In the end, these things determine the hydrophobic(it literally means “water fearing”) and hydrophilic(water loving) nature of the DNA molecule. Just like everything(except for black holes) in this world, everything obeys the laws of thermodynamics and DNA assumes the shape of a helix because it is dissolved in water. So the hydrophilic part of the DNA will face the water molecules, whereas hydrophobic part will try to “run away” from the water. This will lead to helix formation. This is fundamental not only in DNA’s helical structure, but also proteins. Proteins have secondary structures called alpha helices and guess what? They also shape(in proteins, it’s called folding) according to the laws of thermodynamics. So there you go. In one word, it’s thermodynamics that you’re looking for in DNA. In planetary motion, I’m not that much informed about it, mostly because I’m not a physicist(I only attended space camp 10 years ago and thats pretty much it), but I think Dr. Plait is explaining it clearly in his blog post. So, your thought about this universe being connected to each other and all that, is probably nothing but a coincidence. While trying to find meaning in things with science, you should probably be careful about taking it too far.

    “If there is “PhD” behind a name, then “he must know” and “you can’t possibly believe you know better than him”. I strongly disagree with that mindset. I am prepared to disagree with anyone, regardless of their title.”

    If there’s a PhD behind a name, it means that he knows A LOT of things on the subject he/she worked on, and they will accept you are correct(and being better? Really? Come on. This is not about being better or worse, it’s about being right and wrong. Just like science.), if you present them EVIDENCE, then they will not argue against you.

    I just wish that you would understand that Dr. Plait is trying to tell you what the recent data to date is and his explanation of planetary motion is what most likely seems to be true. And when you say that people shouldn’t take your videos as the absolute truth, you should probably state that in your videos as well. When I saw your video a couple days ago, I actually thought it was true, even though it had major flaws in it(Thanks to Dr. Plait for pointing them out). And I’d like to consider myself a fairly educated and a smart person.

    Peace.

  12. Wow. So many fallacies, so little Internet…

    “Then there are these “rules of physics” and “laws of nature” – they are a man-made concept”

    No, they’re not man-made concepts. They’re the way things work. Go back to Newton. He didn’t “invent” Gravity. He just observed it. Einstein didn’t “invent” Relativity, he just figured out how it worked. The Universal Constant is not “an idea”. It’s an actual real thing that happens just like dropping a rock leads to it hitting the ground. Nobody “made that up”. They just put a name on something that was already happening. You can not “feel right” about them all you damn well please. They’re just going to keep on happening with or without you.

    On the other hand, The Tao, the Bible, the Koran, Life after Death…. Oh, Hey! Look! Man-Made concepts! The entire idea of religion is a man-made concept. Holding these concepts up as somehow “equivalent” to the FACT that the Solar System does not actually move in the way that your video claims is like comparing horses and unicorns. One exists, the other doesn’t. You can believe in unicorns all you like and nobody is telling you not to, but to use them as “proof” that horses probably don’t exist is a straw man argument at its best. And that’s exactly what you’ve done here in this post. Another example of someone using things that don’t exist as justification for disbelief of things that really do exist.

    “… as far as I could tell NOBODY in the history of science & astronomy has even tried to give us “the full picture”.”

    Um, no. Actually. Dr Plait DID give you the whole picture. You just choose not to look at it. He got that information from the work of thousands and thousands of other people who observed something fundamentally correct. So yeah, SOMEBODY in history HAS given us the full picture. Just not you.

    “Also, to my surprise most folks were unaware that we even move through space … Way to school people, science!”

    Your anecdotal evidence of “most folks” not knowing something that many people do actually know is irrelevant and not proof that “science” as some at-large entity has failed humanity. Just because you or someone you know didn’t pay attention in high school is not Mr. Plait’s fault. This phenomenon is clearly laid out in any decent description of the Solar System in relation to the Galaxy as well as published in numerous articles blogs and other media on the subject, and has been for many decades. You and some friends not having read / understood those is not proof that they don’t exist.

    “I think we can agree to disagree on the ‘lead’ point.”

    No, we can’t. Rocks do not fall up. Photons are not slower than Birds. 2 + 2 does not equal 5. And the Solar System doesn’t move the way you apparently think it does. It’s not a conversation, it’s a fact.

    To sum up:

    – Feelings are not Facts
    – The way you feel does not disprove the way things actually are
    – Religion and Science are not two warring factions. One is a man made concept that explains reality with made up stories. The other is factual observations on how the Universe works. They are not refutations of each other. You can have both, but what you can’t do is hold up the first as evidence that the second is wrong. If Religion and Spirituality makes you feel better great. Doesn’t change how the Sun moves around the Galaxy.
    – Credentials actually do matter. Dr Plait actually does have more knowledge than you. Saying “a degree doesn’t matter” doesn’t make you any less wrong. It’s not the Title. It’s the fact that he’s right and you’re not that matters.
    – It’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.

    You’re not advancing knowledge or research or understanding with what you’re doing. You’re advancing ignorance and fear and the Stupidification of Society. Bullshit like this leads to Creationists on School Boards. It leads to right wing wing nuts who shoot people because they think the Government is out to get them. It leads to people thinking Glenn Beck is reporting the News. It leads to Westboro Baptist thinking that God is raining wrath on us because some people are Gay. It leads to chaos and backwards thinking that really matters in real life to real people, every damn day. And that’s why this is important. Not because you made a video / didn’t. But because the viewpoints that you’ve laid out in this post are endemic of a decline in society’s IQ at large that’s leading to serious problems and taking us backwards instead of forwards. And what’s your justification? Your rationale? “I feel it”. Well, shit. Let’s just all feel our way back to the Dark Ages. That’d be just swell.

  13. When you mention trying to sort out retrograde orbits, you should take a look at Tycho Brahe’s Tychonic system.
    Tycho was an interesting character. He had a gold prosthetic nose because his nose was chopped off during a duel (or from syphilis), he had a drunken moose as a pet, and pretty much partied every night before he went out to make his planetary observations.

    He found the same issues with the retrograde orbits and created a system that was neither heliocentric (Copernican), nor geocentric (Ptolemaic). His model isn’t perfect, but it was accurate enough to work for several centuries and seeing how the issues of the orbits was tackled in the past might help you wrap your head around it.

  14. Oh, and I’ve seen Phil Plait give live speeches and read many of his critiques of other stuff, and he really wasn’t being that hard on you in the article.

    You should check out the posts by Dan Dixon, the creator of Universe Sandbox. He noted the differences in scale, tilt and some of the speeds and what not that you were already aware of, but he seemed to enjoy the video and even tried to recreate the animation in his own simulator.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/19fr4w/what_our_solar_system_looks_like_from_a_nonfixed/c8o7eau?context=3

    http://www.reddit.com/r/Astronomy/comments/19npzf/phil_plait_no_our_solar_system_is_not_a_vortex/c8ptorc

  15. I love the videos you came up with and think there is potential there to use this work in some other form, such as in fictional work like film (then again, I’m a film maker, so go figure). What really got me going though, was all of the comments that followed. I couldn’t stop reading as I tried to see if your theories were scientific or not. In the end, it seems that science is against the model you presented, although the way people went about shooting your ideas down was in many cases a little harsh. Most people do not take the time to find the least offensive way to argue their point, but often use incendiary rhetoric to not only prove that they are right but also to smash the egos and hurt the feelings of those whom they are arguing against. It’s disheartening how cruel people can be, especially for those of us who are empathetic by nature. The world is filled with people who have absolutely no consideration for the sensitive nature of people and I think this is what leads to a culture of fear, violence and hatred. It really is not a small problem, but (in my opinion) the root of all hostility which leads to war, genocide and other such horrible atrocities. I’m sure my comment will attract such similar heartless and hurtful comments as people try to smash me down too. Honestly, you have handled all of this with more grace than I probably would. But what you have accomplished here is you got people thinking and talking and for that I thank you, because the world needs more of that. Now, if only there were this level of discussion about the fantastic ideas that are out there which cause noticeable damage and keep the cultures of this planet’s civilizations from moving forward, perhaps the people of Earth could evolve a little faster!

  16. Just a word count in Phil’s article on “wrong” brings up 20 items!

    All said and told, the gist from Phil;s article seems to suggest that the model is a great “visual” aid to understand the motion of planets through space. Of-course it needs some grammatical & technical corrections but logically speaking the end product would not be materially different. So why not be constructive about it?

    It is very unfortunate that the science is full of morons like Phil (see how easy it is to implicate someone in a uni-directional communication?) who are happy to find wrongs in other’s work than being constructive about it.

    Also, how chauvinistic is it to assume that DJSadhu is a “he” and not “she”? any thoughts?

  17. @Shree It’s not actually chauvinistic, because there’s a picture of him on his Twitter account, so he’s not a she. You not paying attention doesn’t mean other people have a gender bias.

    @Conan & @Shree the problem people have with the OP is not that the video had technical errors, it’s that he has a fundamental bias against facts and evidence. Not understanding what a problem this is in our society is why you don’t understand how harsh the rhetoric is against it.

  18. “Have you ever considered that the earth’s “fixed” tilted axis does not “feel natural”, since the axis always points in one direction?
    That it seems “off” with what we know about physics of spinning objects and rotation?”

    That’s a good question, for a high school student. Basically the earth is affected only by one force, sun’s gravitational force (ok, we could complicate the model with gravitational forces coming from other objects, and even electromagnetic forces from the sun, but those are way weaker) while the “spinning objects”, like the peg-top in the example, is affected by earth’s gravitation and floor’s opposing force. Also both of those forces are more or less along the axis (when the peg-top is in a vertical position) while the sun’s force is close to an horizontal force. Different forces, different outcome.

    In fact, for an object to begin rotating you need a pair of forces.

  19. Just wanted to add to the positive comments: wow! your videos are great. I love them and I do think they do accomplish one of the main goals that you set to do: make us think, and makes us realize that things (in this case the motion of the solar system) is not as simple as the boring models we tend to see on books and other animations. As you, I’ve often wondered myself how does the whole motion would look like relative to the galaxy. Unfortunately I lack the artistic skills that you have in order to turn my ideas into a beautiful animation as yours.

    And I also applaud the tone of your response to Phil Plait’s critics. Yes, there are many factual errors on your animations, but I’m sure that you if you take a close look at his comments, maybe revise some of your knowledge that may need a bit of revising, you’ll be able to gift us with even more amazing *and* more accurate animations!

    You don’t have to take anything just because it comes from an authority (that’s not very scientific!) but do make the effort (as you have done so already) to listen to his comments and check whether indeed you may need to revise some of your assumptions. You are doing great, I think that you would be able to learn *a lot* from this experience.. and the best is that you can truly make an impact in the world by sharing the beauty of your work and make all of us wonder!

  20. Hey Dj…
    I stumbled on your image and then it took me a couple tries to find the source… so very very cool… and I loved reading about your explanation… super cool… !
    Take Care – Paul

  21. PD

    Newton observed half of an effect of a twin-opposing electric Vortex. He observed an illusion of “pull” that you call gravity. Gravity is not a force upon itself, nor is it a cause. It’s an effect of Centrifugal and centripetal Vortices.

    As for Einstein, CERN has proven that Autistic SOB wrong. Relativity, Quantum is a failed attempt to deny electrical science and the true nature of the universe. You are an arrogant SOB, especially for a person who lives in a reality-by-proxy and understands the universe by viewing it through the minds of men who ARE utterly wrong. How is it that you can see the universe clearly when you fail to see that you are living in a hyperreality. You use ad-hoc fallacies, in addition to false comparisons, and red-herring arguments and think that you are actually using logic. Wow, amazing how you think by attacking anthropomorphized based theologies that you have somehow accomplished something.

    You must be a high school physics teacher or the likes, you institutionalized troll!! The failed science that you are regurgitating is a deliberate fabricated false dialectic used to keep humankind enslaved to energy barons, and yet you are a keeper its gates. You sir do NOT live on the territory, you live on the MAP and haven’t even got a clue.

    I welcome you to a discourse on your failed psyence, because I am going to enjoy shoving that failed, artificially engineered, mythmatic based universe that you built your existence around down that proverbial throat of yours. You are an affront to every freethinking man and woman, and just because you are imprisoned in an artificial reality of your own choosing, and you cannot see the bars in front of your eyes or the chains that bond your mind to an academic agenda that you bow down to, does not mean that you have any right to lash out at others because they refuse to accept that parroted, misguided religion that you call psyence. I look forward to reading your next vile rantings… you are as predictable as your logical fallacies.

  22. Hi djsahu, I like your animation because for me there is much more truth then untruth. I also have great respect of your work because you have investigate pieces of findings from different peoples and put this findings together to a “picture” with, I thought, more truth then untruth. To do this work is not easy, it is hard work because there are nobody you can ask for help.

    Most scientist should take you as paragon because they can only pray what the priest (any professor) say. They are not able to create something new and do a step to the truth.

    About the insults of some comments I will say:
    “Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.” Jean-Jacques Rousseau

  23. Shit storms are required for growth. I really appreciate how you’re integrating science with Spirit; thank you for sharing your work with the world DJ. Keep up the amazing work and DJ-ON! Peace

  24. Well dj, after reading through both articles and looking at the videos, I think you and Phil might have missed each other on the “lead” part: you both actually say that the solar system is not flat.

    The difference between the two is that the Bhat model has all the planets behind the Sun while the “standard” model has the planets both in front of and behind the sun (on both sides of the motion). It’s like the difference between a wind sock on a day when the wind is steady (sock is only on one side of the pole) versus when the wind is shifting a lot (sock on both sides of the pole). If you allow the planets to vary to either side of the direction of motion, you should still be able to reproduce the loop in the retrograde motion.

    Anyways, in spite of all the scientific inaccuracies in your video (which I can still see a few of), I thought the video was pretty damn cool. I also must wonder…have you ever read the works of Max Planck?

  25. Hey DJ,

    I have been doing an exhaustive search for information/animations which shows the motion of the sun & planets through the galaxy. I could not find anything. I could not find sufficient information in written form either. It has been quite frustrating.

    Aside from one old animation by Nassim Haramein, nothing seems to exist except for the new animations you did. I do not think Nassim is formally trained, or funded to work in the field of physics at national lab or a university. So I think many people are missing a fundamental point. Why is this information so hard to find given so many physicists and experts are being funded to the tune of billion of dollars a year and claim to know it all? Why does it take a DJ to do this this kind of helpful 3D animation on his own dime, and why do so many complain instead of pitching in with their skills or expertise? The answer to me is quite obvious and consistent with why there is no other animations to date.

    I studied space physics at the graduate level. It is no exaggeration to say that this entire field functions in a state of developing models, gathering data from satellites and sensors, and doing data analysis. The science is still coming together, and most of the professors I studied with were quite open and honest about that. The one constant that I found is that. The further away you go from the solar system the less physicists truly understand about our universe.

    So thank you very much for this video and starting this discussion. Loved the music too. I am developing Unified Field Theory inclusive of consciousness and life. I found a lot of useful information and links on your site and also through the critic who commented on your video.

    I am still looking for information about the major/minor axis of the elliptical orbits of the planets. If there were arrows on the ends of these axis, in which direction would they point with respect to the galaxy as the solar system does a galactic orbit? Do you (DJ), or anyone else on this board know the answer?

    Thanks
    Jeff

  26. Take a heliocentric model, add appropriate lights, and film it while moving the whole thing forward with a open shutter. Kind of like when you see photos or videos of traffic at night,and see what that looks like. might be interesting…

  27. Certainly not a scientist. Researcher? Surfing the web isn’t research. I would stick to DJ’ing. Your choice of music is good.

    d-_-b

  28. Hey DJ,

    First of all let me just add to the positive remarks. I too had been looking online for animations depicting the movement of the celestial bodies and couldn’t find much. Then recently I watched a lecture by Nassim Haramein where he described how people failed to realize that the sun is shooting through the galaxy and that would make the planets trail behind it in a vortex. I had some trouble visualizing it so I decided to look for videos on youtube, and that’s when I found your stuff.

    Let me just say how FREAKING AMAZING they look! On that note alone I think you sir deserve every bit of praise and tons of encouragement to keep on producing these gems! Sure there might have been some scientific inaccuracies, but then again, who are the infallible authorities to legally attest to something’s accouracy? I totally agree about science’s dogmatic and hierarchical nature and amateur scientists, like yourself, can definitely help man kind towards a less biased version of the truth.

    You also should probably remake the videos, should you decide that the inaccouracies are an issue, since they have become such an immediate find on youtube, I’m sure you have no intention of misinforming people. I know it sucks to blow a million views, but now you’ve published you’re open to peer reviews, right? 🙂

    I’ll just leave you with one final comment. Since you’ve already spotted the pattern, why did you stop at the solar system? Isn’t the giant black hole in the center of the milky way also shooting across the universe? How fast is that guy going? And wouldn’t that also make all the hundreds of billions of stars to be trailing after it in an awesome vortex? Or helix? And how can the galaxy keep itself as a flat disc while the solar system can’t?

    Keep up the good work, bro!

    Cheers from Brasil!

    1. Thanks for your support. The reason I’m not going to take down the first video is because its point still stands. The ‘inaccuracies’ and ‘errors’ that everyone talks about are mainly in the second galaxy video. In the first video the sun does not ‘lead’ the planets, and there is no precession, only a small local field of view. The second video is still up, because there is (new) good scientific base for a couple of these controversial issues. Once I have my revised version ready, this video will have all the clues and information needed.

      As long as controversial videos like these get the discussion going, people will raise their awareness and broaden their view, whether they agree with the video or not.

  29. “…whether they agree with the video or not.”

    This isn’t a matter of _opinion_. The videos do not depict reality — that’s a fact.

  30. Djsadhu, you have done very good work and i really like the effort you put. I tried to find a method to visually respesent the movement of the sun and the planents in orbit of our galaxy and found almost no reference. As fas as i know you are the First one to have done it. So in a way you are a pioneer! I have to add that it doesnt “feel right” that in a 3d universe (there are more dimensions but i am only reffering to the 3axis) the planets only move in 2 dimensions. It doesnt feel right that earth has a satellite especially so big and with such a fixed axis. I am looking forward to your next Project!

Comments are closed.