The Helical Model – vortex solar system animation

Get the soundtrack here for free:

Forget the old heliocentric model – our solar system is a vortex!

The old Newtonion/Copernican Heliocentric model of our solar system is an unproven theory.
A bright fellow named Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat came up with quite a different way to think of our Solar System.

There are a couple of reasons why I think this model could just be right.

First of all, the heliocentrical model has always been presented (especially by NASA) as a “frisbee” model.

NASA frisbee model
[image taken from here]

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

Secondly, most planets are visible throughout the entire year. In a “flat” model, every single planet would hide behind the Sun at least once a year. They don’t. Now the heliocentric model isn’t entirely flat, but mostly.

IF the travel direction of the Solar System is “up” or “down” – why haven’t I heard from this in my entire life? Why do I need to run into the dr Bhat material to see the “spiral” for the first time? The opposition is divided into two groups: one group thinks the helical model is wrong, the other group says that there’s no or little difference with the current model – very curious.

UPDATE: the FIRST NASA image that shows it like it is

Finally I found ONE image from NASA that shows the angle and travel direction of our solar system:



Fact of the matter is that if the helical model is correct and our Solar System is a traveling vortex, it will change how we feel about our journey. For me personally the heliocentric model feels like a useless merry-go-round: after one year we are back to square one. The helical model feels much more like progress, growth, a journey through space in which we never ever come back to our starting point. We are NOT in a big marry-go-round. We are on a journey.

A circle is a spiral with the progress taken out

And then I get very suspicious because this kind of tricks have been used before.
Compare the Mayan calendar with the Gregorian one: the Mayan calendar has an intricate system to guide you in your personal spiritual evolution and growth. It has days for making new friends, days for self-reflection, and so on. If you were to live by this calendar, you would never stop moving forwards.

The Gregorian calendar on the other hand tells you only a few things: your week starts at Monday, you’re free on Saturday and Sunday, and you work till you drop dead. Very handy if you’re part of the establishment, not very useful if you’re an individual looking for ways to better yourself.

Related YouTube videos

Links and resources

planets visible throughout the year.

Download the original “Helical Helix PDF” from dr Bhat (24Mb).

Mayan Calendar explained

Gregorian calendar

211 thoughts on “The Helical Model – vortex solar system animation

  1. This is some kind of “mambo-jumbo” Indian physics! :D

    Dumb and ridiculous!

    I hates me to explain why, I have a feeling that you wouldn’t understand anyway… :)

    1. I am amazed at how narrow-minded, stiff-necked and sourly orthodox the “scientific” establishment can be in his own homeland, India. Many theories once held as irrefutable truths have later fallen into oblivion due to science moving forward! Science can be called such if and only if it remains compatible with evolution. What an embarrassing remark Bole…if you had just added some substance to the thread (apart from proper Grammar)…pity.

    2. DJ,

      you really just don’t get IT. This observation of yours depends entirely upon a specific RELATIVE VIEWPOINT. The helical model for our solar system just is not correct. There is no “lag” in the orbits of our planets relative in direction to the direction our solar system is moving through space. It is clearly measureable that each planet has a wobble, yes, minutely so in the plane of our system, relative to our satellites too, but there is no lag, as measured as you show in your model.

      Understand this, it is relational, to what? A still point inside our Milky Way? A still point in space in the orbit of our “wing” arm of stellar systems inside the MW ? A still point in the direction and speed of our Milky Way expanding “outward” beyond, what ? A still [point of our universe, in relationship to all galaxies expanding outward from an arbitrary, central point (- there is none) ?

      I hope you see my point. There is only relational observation, anywhere, and this depends upon the observers viewpoint, relational speed and relational direction.

      1. Sure, I agree it’s for the bigger part about “relative viewpoint”. But why chose the stationary frisbee model over this helical one? That’s what I don’t get.

        1. For simplicity and parsimony. The Earth centric is not wrong either and it was easier for awhile. Yours has more complexity so can be harder for others to accept. Much of the criticism is that it’s not accurate but no model is ever 100% accurate or it wouldn’t be a model. Your model is very interesting. I like the visual aspect and complexity, well done.

          1. David:
            Since we are doing our observing from the earth, geocentric is what we actually see. There fore as a construct it natural we should use it. However things such as my discovery as seen on you tube ( ) can not be seen from a geocentric perspective.

  2. Ещё 48 лет назад винтовое движение планет я описал в статье, которую послал в журнал “Техника молодёжи”, но ответа так и не получил. в 2004 году
    я её выложил на свой сайт, но домен закрылся и я переместил статью на новый личный сайт http://азбогаведаю.рф (http://xn--80aaacgejhn5euj.xn--p1ai/). Вы можете ознакомиться с ней http://xn--80aaacgejhn5euj.xn--p1ai/Mir.html. Непосредственно о винтовом движении описано на стр 4 и 5. Между прочим я до этих пор храню первоисточники. Сейчас мне 68 лет и очень бы хотелось перевести эту статью на английский язык и вообще нашлись бы толковые ребята, чтобы совместно отстоять приоритет России. У кого есть возможности сделайте репост.

    1. Google translation: “More 48 years ago helical motion of the planets I described in an article sent to the journal “Techniques of Youth” , but no reply received. 2004
      I posted it on my site, but the domain closed and I moved to a new article personal website http: //azbogavedayu.rf (http://xn--80aaacgejhn5euj.xn--p1ai/). You can read it http://xn--80aaacgejhn5euj.xn--p1ai/Mir.html. Directly on the helical motion is described on page 4 and 5. By the way , I have kept until now primary sources. Now I am 68 years old and would very much like to translate this article into English and all the guys there would be sensible to jointly defend the priority of Russia . Who has the opportunity make repost .

    2. Всё очень просто, попробуйте ощутить себя на планете которая мчится сквозь бесконечность, каждую минуту врываясь в нечто новое, непознанное. Совсем другое ощущение себя в окружающем пространстве? ))) Зачем это рабовладельцам? куда эффективнее ощущения клетки, замкнутости, освоение космоса? зачем?! у нас новые Iphone 6,7,8,9…

      нет рабства безнадежней тех рабов кто мнит себя свободным от оков.

      1. translated: “It’s very simple, try to feel the world is hurtling through infinity, every minute breaking into something new and unknown. It is quite another feeling in the surrounding area? ))) What is the slave owners? feeling much more effective cell isolation, space exploration? why ?! we have new Iphone 6,7,8,9 … no hopeless slavery those slaves who imagines himself to be free from the shackles.”

  3. Great motion simulation… 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!… anyway, like I wrote, great graphic!

  4. No – our solar system is inclined to the plane of travel in our galaxy, I think @ 61º
    so your heliocentric model fails, because there is little symmetrical correlation of our spin axis to that geometry of our Milky Way.
    In addition, the radial spin axis of our solar system does not rotate around the center of our galaxy either. It remains in a slight wobble of angular declination.
    Your basic flaw is assigning heliocentricity to a Milky Way symmetry. It’s not there.

  5. The Helical explanation is correct. Any time I see someone using the word wobble it usually means they don’t know what is really going on. Heliocentricity is the correct pattern for every thing that is moving in space .

  6. وَٱلشَّمْسُ تَجْرِى لِمُسْتَقَرٍّ لَّهَا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ تَقْدِيرُ ٱلْعَزِيزِ ٱلْعَلِيمِ

  7. Olá! Eu divulguei o vídeo de vocês em meu blog e em minha pagina no youtube. Acontece que alguém reclamou os direitos autorais e o youtube me tirou o vídeo da minha pagina! Gostaria de saber se há alguma restrição para o uso do vídeo e a minha intenção foi somente divulgar este trabalho. Não fiz nenhuma edição ou corte, o nome de vosso site fica visível o tempo todo. Será que “eu” cometi algum erro por engano?

    1. Olá . Eu entendo a sua intenção. Fico feliz que você aprecia o vídeo. O compartilhamento de vídeo original ou vinculação ou pode obviamente. Mas não copiar ou re -upload sem perguntar. Eu também lhe enviou uma mensagem , que não foi respondido.

  8. I don’t know about the helical model, but I found it interesting that the planets movement in the fourth dimension (i.e in time) looks the same as electromagnetic wave oscillations.
    I know this sounds crazy, but maybe photons of different wavelengths are a collections of tiny massless particles that are orbiting a central point of gravity.

  9. Max:
    I think there are two parallel helical paths one electric the other magnetic. They each push and pull the other along through space.

  10. Thank you for engaging your viewers/readers in this thoughtful discussion. The Helical Model is well within the realm of logic. The notion that our solar system remains in a static position is illogical. Of course it is our nature to question. I believe that human curiosity is what makes our species truly distinct (though some theologians would blame us for “eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil,” our “original sin,” but how open a mind is one that unquestionably accepts theology and asks not about an alternate explanation of existence?). So let us challenge orthodoxy, not just from the standpoint of the physics of our solar system and its relationship to a spinning sun on an unknown or unknowable trajectory (we think we know but our powers of observation fall short of complete certainty), as it drags along through it gravitational pull the objects that we collectively call our solar system. Consider the so-called “big bang” (poor choice of names as there is no “bang” in a vacuum). The contention is that we have an “expanding universe.” OK, at least what we can observe appears to be moving away (relative to our vantage point). Yet, just how far can we observe? Even our very best optics and radio telemetry can only measure just so far. At what point does a flashlight in the dark lose its illumination? Is its delivery of light infinite? or does it fall short? Look at a shaft of sunlight penetrating an otherwise darkened room as you shake the dust from a rug. At some point the opacity of the particles in the air deter the further penetration of the beam. Similarly, our observations of the galaxy (or galaxies) will be deterred by the countless obstacles that will block the view (we see from the Kepler satellite data how our view through that keyhole keeps presenting discoveries of previously undiscovered planets, some similar even to Earth). What is the measure of opacity then in space? How much is out there? How deep into space can we observe? At what point does our ability to measure stop us from observing further? Can we conclude that space is finite only because our ability to observe is also finite? How do we know if at the point of our own limitations to measure there were not other “big bangs” that have occurred or are yet to occur which will send matter expanding away from that point or those points and hurl it in the direction contrary to the one claimed by the advocates for the conventional “big bang” explanation prevailing among many astronomers here now? Funny thing about orthodoxy is that those most convinced of their certainty about a theory all too often must consider new evidence. The world is flat. No, actually, we discovered it’s a sphere. The Earth is at the center of our solar system. No, actually it is in an orbit around the sun. We conclude there is an expanding universe and everything started with a “big bang” 14 billion years ago. Really? Was it on a Tuesday afternoon at 2:14 PM? Was that Eastern Time? or Central? Has hubris ever been taken to greater extremes? How dare anyone challenge this orthodoxy? And where exactly did this “big bang” occur? In Kansas City on the corner 4th Street and Vine? This explains all? Nothing preceded it? Nothing occurred elsewhere at some other point? Time is finite? Space is not infinite? Is the human mind so constrained that an alternate explanation cannot possibly be correct? Au contraire mis amigos.

    1. Jim:
      Your comment on he flashlight brought to mind a thirty year old perspective on light. I think the red shift of light from distant objects is most likely due to energy loss not velocity moving away.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>