- instrumental music for conscious minds. Get the albums 'Beats in Minor', 'Threshold', 'Beyond' and 'Origins'. The Helical Model - vortex solar system animation |

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.

[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

View Comments (227)

  • 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?

    • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

    • 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.

  • Yes its true if you observe at the point of beyond our solar system' seven time away you can see this helic model movements... Or else place the camera at voyager satalite point and observe the movement or record it for ten years then play this record in your home tv in fast foward play then you will agree that dj sadhu model is absolutely true!!! Jai hind
    Prashanth Venkatasway

  • The following site leads to a paper explaining the best data known, to date, about the sun's orbit around the galactic center.

    Now, to address the real story here.

    1) Yes, the sun and the planets orbit the galaxy in a complex helical dance.

    2) To be precise, all evidence shows that the planets AND the sun orbit the center of mass of the solar system (deep within the sun, to be sure, but not at its center), irrespective of any other frame of reference.

    3) The vector of motion, relative to the Local Standard of Rest (the mean orbit around the galaxy of the local stars (LSR)), is approximately 20km/s in the direction of RA 18hrs 30mins and Dec 60°.

    This vector has us moving up, currently, above the mean plane of the disk, and inward towards Perigalacticon (closest approach to the galactic center) some 8.4kpc (kilo parsecs). We are close to Perigalacticon, as our current position is roughly 8.5kpc (roughly 26,500LY) and, best estimate, ~20PC above the mean plane of the galactic disk.

    4) The sun's movement above and below the mean plane of the galactic disk, has an amplitude of roughly 70pc, with a periodicity of between 50-65Myrs (Million years).

    The motion inward and outward carries us from Perigalacticon (~8.4kpc) to Apgalacticon (~9.7kpc), and back again, with a periodicity of roughly160Myr. Approximately 1 and a half times per galactic year.

    Because of the differing mass of stars contained within the 2 different radii, the orbit is only roughly elliptical.

    5) Because the plane of the ecliptic (mean plane of the solar system) is NOT perpendicular to the velocity vector, yes, the planets do, for half of their orbits, lead the sun in its orbit. For the other half, they follow it.

    If you have any comments, or corrections, WITH corroborating data, please email me at


    Rodger Young
    Amateur Astronomer and Astrocartographer

    • Great Roger and thank you,
      Now can we confirm that the Earth enter the space where the Sun use to be every 6 months? And this statement would be the same with the other planets? Moreover we enter the same space vacated by other planets at times?
      If yes then how can we calculate and find the times we pass through the same space that was vacated by let us say the Sun ?
      Thank you

  • I forgot to add, the velocity vector of the LSR is ~200km/s in the direction RA 11hrs, 55mins Dec 52°.

    Remember the vector I stated for the sun's velocity is relative to the LSR. For the sun's individual velocity vector, you must add th 2 vectors.