The Helical Model – vortex solar system animation






Get the soundtrack here for free: http://www.djsadhu.com/audio-video/vortex-solar-system-instrumental/

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:

Finally!!

Consequences

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex

http://www.halfpasthuman.com/models.html
http://www.halfpasthuman.com/noodles.html
http://www.halfpasthuman.com/nailstochew.html

http://www.gravitycontrol.org/forum/index.php?topic=471.msg4473#msg4473

http://www.google.nl/search?q=vortex+solar+system

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/golden-ratio

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

  1. This is not a true representation. It assumes that the planets are resisting the sun’s gravitational pull, et being draw in its trajectory as it travels. Essentially, the solar system is like a disc that acts as a whole. The sun does not move independently though space, but is, with the solar system, stuck in the the disc of the Milky Way and rotating with the other stars in our galaxy. It takes roughly 230 million years to complete one galactic year. There is also movement within our local group, our galactic cluster and the supercluster. But the vortex effect that is being shown is not real in the sense that it is being described anymore than the outer parts of the spokes of a bicycle wheel travel in a vortex in relation to the hub.

  2. Hi Don Austen, please post a link which shows visually, the correct representation of planetary orbits and solar system. Magazines like Slate & Universe Today were quick to find faults with DJ Sadhu’s depiction but failed to show the correct depiction. I could not find it anywhere on the internet. I wonder why the helical orbits of planets seems to be the best kept secret.

    1. The both videos are different in the sense that the first one (solar system) has a single point to make (why only show the “stationary” diagram?) and the second Galaxy video is full of technical stuff that can be confirmed or debunked. I have made a “corrected version” of the first solar system video, and it looks ridiculously similar – leaving the question why we only get to see the flat stationary diagrams. Maybe I’ll upload it some day.

  3. DJ Sadhu, this might inspire you. Announcement of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2014 :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbfwcroJqWM

    One of the 3 winners,Stefan Hell admits in the telephonic interview at 22nd min that he was on the verge of almost giving up 2 yrs earlier because the scientific community wasn’t very receptive to the idea of overcoming the diffraction barrier (of light, which he successfully did).

    In simple language, despite proving his theory scientifically and being able to repeat it, the
    elite scientific community refuted it and blindly believed in a phyics law discovered in 1873 !
    If he had not recieved a Nobel Prize, he would have been labelled as a pseudo-scientist and forgotten. Also, at 22:24 the panel expert says most people who are up against a physical limit do not survive professionally. Very significant words indeed.

    And we thought scientists are open-minded people, in pursuit of the truth ! If the ‘scientific’ community is so close-minded and skeptical, then you can imagine the condition of the non-scientific community, who I suspect are your biggest critics.

    This same post of mine was later moderated out of a facebook ‘science-is-great’ type of page that posted an article on ‘How Did We Become a Society Suspicious of Science’. I suspect they could not digest the ‘elite scientific club’ being shown in negative light. Is it possible that most of the scientific breakthroughs happen due to rebel scientists and not the ones who say ‘yes boss’ for a smooth career progression ?

    I am glad your videos elicited a criticism from Slate & Universe today, both indirectly confirming the helical orbits of planets. This point needs to be mentioned in your future corrected video. Most people would have missed this point, jumped to conclusions based on their misleading headlines, without actually reading it fully.

  4. This is really quite brilliant. But if this premise is correct, which I’m immensely unqualified to dispute, then the possibility of time travel drops to infinitely impossible. Not only would you have to have a precise point in time to travel to; but your point of origin, and your target destination, physically speaking, could be thousands, if not millions, of miles apart. You’d have to be able to target the precise location, within the cosmos, relative to your current position, which could be nearly impossible to do.

    Not only would the whole “time is linear” thing have to be overcome, but the traveler would have to figure out a way to transport his/her matter not just across time, but the immense difference in physical distance as well.

    Sorry if this seems like rambling. But after watching the video, and trying to understand some of the science, my crazy brain jumped right to time travel.

    Thoughts?

  5. Thank you for doing this. Since 1990 when I first published my poster titled “Motion”, which The National Teachers association has been selling since then, I have been trying to make the astronomers and astrophysics aware of the earth’s helical motion. The poster depicts the motion of all three, the sun, earth, and moon, for three periods, a 29 day, a one month, and a one year. I use the poster in my video “Alan’s Discovery” on youtube https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=EFlzzm_sE3Y . The discovery I have made is that the earth is not tipped 23.5 degrees. The direct overhead of the sun goes above and below the equator because of two angles. The new angle is what I call The Zale Angle. It occurs because the earth moves ahead of the sun and behind the sun, as do all of the other planets. When the earth is ahead of the sun the direct overhead goes below the equator and above the equator when the earth goes behind the sun. A good measurement for The Zale Angle is 2.22 degrees therefore the earth is only tipped 21.28 degrees. On page 2 of my website http://www.alansthoughts.com/ are some papers that might help to understand my perspective and my conclusions. I do have Phd’s that agree with what I have concluded. Including my paper on http://www.alansthoughts.com/ .

  6. Over the years I’ve learned that the helical perspective is quite difficult for persons who have been thinking in a geocentric perspective all their lives. But it has many benefits. It enabled me to see that the earth is not tipped 23.5 degrees because the earth’s motion going ahead and behind the sun also moves the direct-overhead above and below the equator. That amount is 2.22 degrees so the tip is only 21.28 degrees. The two angles then lead to my being able to explain why nutation and precession occur. For an explanation of this understanding go to http://www.alansthoughts.com/ and on page 2 and read “Why The Earth Wobbles” paper. Most things in space are moving in a helical pattern, including photons. I hope this helps those interested in learning about the helical perspective. Email me your postal mail address at alan@alansthoughts.com and I will send you a copy of my Motion Poster.

  7. This isn’t anything new or remarkable. All you are doing is changing the frame of reference. You can choose any frame of reference to view the motion. If you are using something fixed to the sun, orbits are ellipses. If you are fixed to the galaxy, you’ll see the motion of the sun relative to the galaxy – but that doesn’t change anything, just your observation. This isn’t revolutionary; it is basic choice of reference frame.

    There is no “fixed” point in space – all observations must be made from a frame of reference we construct (mathematically). How you choose that reference frame determines how your measurements work out. The simplest observations of the solar system are made with the heliocentric model because it simplifies the math. If you are doing orbital calculations around the earth, it is convenient to use a reference frame of the earth. It isn’t more or less correct – it is just easier.

    You could try to sound just as revolutionary if you presented the mathematical calculations that NASA make for spaceships and satellites – and then say “wow – the earth actually goes around the sun so a geo-centric orbit is wrong – you should use a heliocentric model”. Yes, it is true that NASA could calculate orbits around the earth using a helix model as the earth goes around the sun, but it would be a lot harder and have no greater utility or accuracy; that’s why they calculate earth orbits relative to the earth. You can use any model you like; it just gets more complicated as you get further away from what you are calculating.

    And I suggest you don’t use “vortex” – a vortex is a rotation in a fluid – there is no fluid in space, unless you are bring back the theory of “ether”. Use the word “helix” to be more precise; it’s a path.

  8. (1) I have never come across anybody describing 2 birds as revolving around each, with talons locked. It is always described as spiralling down. Intelligent observations always take into account the motion along Z axis too. If you change the frame of reference, the birds are indeed revolving around each other in a circular orbit. But nobody reports it like that, do they ?

    (2) Just forget frame of reference for a minute. If planets left a trail of smoke behind them like planes in airshows, you will see helical paths, not elliptical or circular. Why not describe what is really happening, instead of taking creative liberty with frames of reference ?

    (3) If everything boils down to frames of reference, then why are we teaching that planets go around the sun ? Why not teach that everything goes around the earth ? Earth is the strongest point of reference and that is exactly what an earthling would observe with their eyes also ! Yet we are taught that this ancient idea is wrong.

    (4) Though David’s point is correct, he seems to mistakenly believe that helical orbits is common knowledge. It is not. If that were the case, DJ Sadhu’s videos would not attract the attention they are getting. Concept of helical orbits was never even mentioned in any of the science books i grew up with, in school and college, including todays books. Internet information is also suspiciously silent on this aspect.

    So, let us not simply dismiss it as a frame of reference or a simplified description. Fact is, the wrong concept is being taught. Earth does not return to same point after 365 days, as the elliptical orbit idea stupidly suggests. Thats the whole point of DJ Sadhu’s videos.

  9. I came here to point out that the “flat” model of the solar system is not wrong, it just chooses the sun as its frame of reference. I see now that many others have said similar things. I notice that many commenters (like Rob) don’t seem to know what they’re talking about but there are some who do so I won’t repeat them. My only question now is, you mention that the solar system is moving at 70000 kph but with respect to what? Frame of reference is everything when dealing with motion, particular in space. Despite what Vinny said, one cannot simply “forget” the frame of reference. Motion cannot be discussed without it.

  10. Oh, and I should mention that the video is beautiful and the beat has a really nice groove. I love to see things from new perspectives.

  11. Yeah, I understood the point. And it was well executed! I only mention it because the video says at the beginning that the flat model is “boring” and “wrong.”

    1. Sure. The terms “boring” and “wrong” are my emotional expression of how much the old model lacks. It just gives the wrong impression. The Frisbee Diagrams kind of take away the adventure of it all. I was amazed by the number of people who did not even know that our solar system is not stationary.

  12. Ah, I see. The perspective you shared in your video was definitely more interesting. Even knowing that the solar system isn’t stationary it was still cool to see it illustrated like that. Thanks for creating it!

  13. You all might enjoy learning more about what the helical perspective can teach you. If so go to
    https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=EFlzzm_sE3Y
    Also the earth does not wobble like atop. For more information on that go to http://alansthoughts.com/2.html and read the paper on Why the earth wobbles. You might find some of the other papers quite interesting also. The National Science Teachers Association has been selling my “MOTION’ poster for 20 years.

  14. @Alan Word docs? Thanks but no thanks. The video was interesting though. It seems to me that people keep wanting to say this or that model is wrong or the Earth moves at one speed and not another but all of that is relative. One isn’t right and the other wrong. One is relative to one thing and another to another. You said in the video that the Earth, at different times, moves faster and then slower than the sun. But that’s only relative to the galaxy. Relative to the sun, the speed of the Earth does not change. So it really depends on how we define it; how large we draw our system. If we take the entirety of Nature as our system then the Earth, and indeed all matter, is actually moving at the speed of light. The largest component vector of this velocity (by far) is in 4th dimension–time. This is why time slows down the faster one moves through the three physical dimensions. Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity covers all of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

    The same can be said about the Earth’s tilt. You say that the Earth is not tilted at 23.4 degrees and you’re right–relative to itself. But the Earth’s rotational axis is indeed tilted at 23.4 degrees relative to its orbital plane. It’s tilted at a different angle relative to the plane of the galaxy and a still different angle relative to some other galaxy.

    So my point is that you’re not wrong but neither are they. It’s all a matter of perspective. 🙂

  15. Dave
    From the sun’s perspective if you construct a plane through the center of the sun and perpendicular to the direction the sun is moving, I call it the reference plane, the earth passes thorough that plane twice a year, April 4th and Oct. 6th. It is that motion above and below the reference plane that contributes 2.22degrees to the movement of the direct-overheads above and below the earth’s equator. This is how we now know that earth’s rotating axis is only tipped 21.28degrees.

  16. Alan,
    So you’re saying that they’ve made a mistake in calculating the angle of the earth’s axis to its orbital plane? I suppose that’s possible. I understand the concepts involved with these things but I have to trust others to actually do the math. I fail to see what the direction of the sun’s motion relative to the galaxy has to do with the angle of the earth’s axis relative to its orbital plane though. The sun does not move relative to the earth.

  17. Dave,
    I do not use the earth’s orbiting plane in any of my analysis because to me the earth does not orbit in a plane it orbits in a helical pattern. The sun orbits the center of a galaxy and I use its motion to establish a frame of reference. As I was told by a Prof at MIT the sun pulls the planets through the galaxy. So when it gets behind the sun pulls it in the direction the sun is moving and as I said before on Oct.6th it starts to go ahead of the sun, at this point in its cycle the earth is at its maximum velocity in the direction the sun is traveling,and now it is starting to be slowed down by the sun. These velocities of the earth of which I am speaking are all in the direction the is traveling, not its orbiting velocity. Jan. 5th is when it is furthest ahead and the earth’s velocity is the same as the sun’s. It’s slowest velocity is on April 4th and it gets back to the sun’s velocity on July 5th. I know this is quite difficult for persons who have spent years thinking from a geocentric perspective only.

  18. Alan,
    Respectfully, this is not correct. What we’re talking about is a heliocentric perspective, not a geocentric one, and it’s the only perspective that’s relevant when discussing the earth’s axial tilt. From a geocentric perspective the earth has no tilt, no wobble, no velocity–it does not move. From a heliocentric perspective the earth is tilted at some angle (they say 23.4 degrees), moves with a constant angular velocity and orbits the sun in a 2D plane. From a galaxy-centric perspective the sun orbits the galactic core in a sine-wave pattern (Not a helix as the sun only moves up and down relative to the plane of the galaxy. It does not move closer to and then farther away from the core just as the earth does not move closer to and farther away from the sun and for the same reason.) The professor at MIT that told you the sun pulls the planets through the through the galaxy is correct and the planets do trace a helical pattern through the galaxy as they go but this is exactly because they are orbiting the sun in 2D planes as the sun moves through the galaxy. The motion of the sun through the galaxy has no bearing on the motion of the earth around the sun.

    So when discussing the earth’s axial tilt we do not have to consider the sun’s motion. If what you say were true then your analysis would still be incorrect because if the sun’s motion through the galaxy is relevant then the galaxy’s motion through the universe would also be relevant and you have not taken that into account.

  19. Today Dec. 21st is the start of the winter solstice. The winter solstice is a manifestation of the existence of the Zale Angle. The Zale angle is one of the two angles that contribute to the direct-overhead of the sun going 23.5degrees above and below the earth’s equator. The Zale Angle occurs because the earth orbits the sun in the same manner that all of the other planets do. In 1992 a prof. at MIT agreed that all of the other planets go ahead of the sun and fall behind the sun as the sun pulls them through the galaxy. When the earth goes ahead of the sun the direct-overhead goes below the equator and when the earth goes ahead of the sun the direct-overhead goes above the equator. This action causes what I call the Zale Angle. The Zale Angle contributes 2.22degrees the motion of the direct-overhead. Thus the earth is only tipped 21.28 degrees. So today the tip angle is starting to move the direct-overhead back toward the equator but the Zale Angle is still trying to move it toward the South Pole. On Jan.5th the Zale Angle will reverse its direction and start moving the direct-overhead back toward the equator. Thus the reason the solstice occurs is because the contributions of each of these two angles are almost equal and they are each trying to move the direct-overhead in opposite directions.

  20. A correction to my previous Dec 21st comment midway thru I used go ahead twice in the same sentance my mistake. Below it is corrected.
    Today Dec. 21st is the start of the winter solstice. The winter solstice is a manifestation of the existence of the Zale Angle. The Zale angle is one of the two angles that contribute to the direct-overhead of the sun going 23.5degrees above and below the earth’s equator. The Zale Angle occurs because the earth orbits the sun in the same manner that all of the other planets do. In 1992 a prof. at MIT agreed that all of the other planets go ahead of the sun and fall behind the sun as the sun pulls them through the galaxy. When the earth goes ahead of the sun the direct-overhead goes below the equator and when the earth goes behind the sun the direct-overhead goes above the equator. This action causes what I call the Zale Angle. The Zale Angle contributes 2.22degrees the motion of the direct-overhead. Thus the earth is only tipped 21.28 degrees. So today the tip angle is starting to move the direct-overhead back toward the equator but the Zale Angle is still trying to move it toward the South Pole. On Jan.5th the Zale Angle will reverse its direction and start moving the direct-overhead back toward the equator. Thus the reason the solstice occurs is because the contributions of each of these two angles are almost equal and they are each trying to move the direct-overhead in opposite directions.

  21. Alan,
    Picture this: you’re on a space station in a room with no windows. In the center of the room is a candle and you are moving around the candle in a circle. Does the movement of the space station through space make any difference in the angle that the light from the candle hits you?

    Of course not.

    Or to make it even more simple, imagine you’re driving in your car. Does the car’s speed or direction change your relationship to the car?

    Clearly it does not.

    It’s the same way with the solar system. I know it can seem complicated because of the scale of the solar system and the fact that we can’t directly observe it with our own eyes but it’s really a very simple concept. The fact that the sun is moving through the galaxy and pulling planets along with it doesn’t have any bearing on the relationship of the planets to the sun.

  22. Actually, this too, is incorrect. You, too, are thinking linearly. This all depends upon the actual relativity of the viewer. Yes, this particular parallax view is possible, but only likely if you are curving in space time, parallel to the directed motion you placed Sol in. Our solar system is moving in a clearly defined spiral with several billion other stars in our Milky Way. And our entire Galaxy itself is moving – axially – in a direction the central “black Hole” of ours is pushing it through. In the not too distant future, several billion of our puny years away, our Galaxy will be colliding with our next nearest Galaxy, Andromeda, and this too will re-define specific directionality of our travels in regard to the three dimensions we understand. Life is not a vortex, in the fourth dimension we acknowledge presence as a string with a defined start and a certain ending (for now anyway). There is nothing else. In the all too distant real future all galaxies, all nebula, all elementary fogs and matter/energy will in itself return to collapsing upon itself , once again then creating the big bang from whence we came. This has to happen because the energy and matter of the small forces must combine with a Grand Unification Theory, just to appease our obsessive / compulsive modern physicist dreamers with their (totally incorrect ) notions of multiverses, parallel universes, multi-dimensional systems and planets -just to understand their incorrect mathematical equations. Plato was right about us being in a cave seeing shadows on the wall and never understanding exactly what it means…. Thats whats so sad about INTERSTELLAR. No matter or energy combines in/near/around a black hole. All of what we recall as reality (Turing) must cease to exist so that the strong forces can combine as gravity requires. Everything is always relative to a specific viewpoint in X,Y, Z axis and with then a specific time coordinate added. That time coordinate too, must be relational, otherwise RELATIVITY cannot apply.

    1. Sure, every viewpoint is relative, speed is relative. Just let me try and shift from one relative viewpoint (local space, flat disk solar system) to the next (external view, time included, helical paths). I just can’t help but notice the similarity in helical patterns everywhere in life 🙂

  23. djsadhu
    I agree 100%! Eeverything from photon motion to the suns motion is in a helical pattern. Yet it is rarely spoken of? To me it does help to explain many aspects of physics.

  24. quentin parker
    Thanks for trying but your perspective is to sophisticated for me and mine is to simple for you. Sorry! What I said back on Dec 17 is correct and no one has ever SHOWN it to be wrong. People say I’m wrong but they can not show me where I am wrong.

  25. Alan, I can’t make heads or tails of what quentin parker is saying but the trouble with your perspective isn’t that it’s too simple. It’s that it’s plain wrong. The sun’s motion does not have any impact on the angular velocity of the planets and certainly not their direction *as they relate to the sun.* If it did they would cease to orbit the sun and we would all die because it would move on without us. Have you ever seen one of those coin funnel things they have in malls and places like that were you drop a coin in the receptor and it spins faster and faster until it falls into the bin below? Can you imagine dropping a coin into that having it speed up and slow down and move up the slope and back down it? Of course not. Why? Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics: conservation of energy. For a change in the coin’s motion external energy would have to be applied to it. It would have to be artificially accelerated. For the same reason the planets cannot slow down and speed up and they cannot increase and decrease the radius of their orbits. That said, with respect to the galaxy, they do trace a helical pattern because they orbit the sun and the sun orbits the galactic core. Imagine spinning a yo-yo around your head as you walk around a tree. From your perspective the yo-yo’s angular velocity does not change, it stays a fixed distance from your head, it’s direction and speed do not change. This is all that matters when talking about the sun’s angle to the earth.

    I have now SHOWN what you say to be wrong multiple times. I have posted links to credible astrophysicists supporting my position. If you have really talked to scientists at MIT about this then I’m confident they have shown you that you were wrong as well. You may choose not to listen but that doesn’t make what you say true.

    Also, photo motion is not helical. Photons have wave properties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

  26. Dave
    I am not speaking of the orbiting velocity about the sun. I am speaking of the earth’s velocity in the direction the sun is moving through the galaxy. What might help you is seeing the poster I use in the following youtube video.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFlzzm_sE3Y

    The poster I use in the video has been being sold at the Nation Science Teacher’s Ass. for twenty years.
    The helical motion as shown of the moon orbiting the earth and the earth orbiting the sun are wave motions. The are transverse sine wave motions.

  27. Alan,
    I did see your poster when I watched your video and it looked, to me, like an accurate depiction of the path the sun and planets trace as they orbit the galaxy. But this has no bearing on the solstices.

  28. Dave
    First thank you for your kind efforts in trying to understand what I am trying to convey.
    . There are a couple of steps to get from the video to the effect on the solstice. The video enplanes that the earth goes ahead and behind, thus the Zale Angle. Going ahead and behind contributes to the direct overhead (DOH) movement. The cycles for each contributor to the DOH are not in sync. The tips contribution peaks Dec. 21st. The Zale Angle contribution doesn’t peak until Jan. 5th. So they are in conflict as to how they are each trying to move the DOH. The tip angle starts trying to move the DOH north toward the equator, while the Zale Angle is still trying to move the DOH south. To the naked eye the DOH appears to be the same for those four days, but there is a slight change taking place each day. So I am told. I have never made the measurement, I am not an astronomer.

  29. Lets keep it simple. Our solar system is traveling at roughly a 60º angle in the direction of our movement through our MW spiral. We are also moving slightly upward (and downward) from this plain of the spiral, @ 25,000LY in distance – and downward, BUT this should, by most calculations only happen @ 4 times per “orbit” around the center (our own MW black hole!) Where we are located, the “thickness of our spiral wave reaches @ 100,000 LYs and this cannot change without the existing gravitational methodology modifying itself. The stronger of the forces will always pull our solar mass back towards the center of our MW spiral swirl. Always. However with the mass inertia of the upward vertical deviation, the correction requires a downward deviation as well.

    However, there can be no inward or outward of the helical spiral DJ is showing because mathematically you would need to be adding energy and subtracting energy to speed up our rotational vector for this to occur.

    Unless there is some other force central to the Helix he shows at work, this is mathematically impossible. Like the shuttle, losing velocity will decrease the orbit, and gaining velocity will increase an orbit. We, our solar system, has no such propulsion unit, therefor the helical twisting DJ provides is patently false.

    The reasons for our amplitude deviations toward the center plain of our swirling disc are possible for three causes.
    1. our initial mass capture into the MW swirl still has vector forces acting upon our rotational forces of capture
    2. other near by pass collisions of other, large star systems fly-bys millions of millions of years ago may have enacted the deviation
    3. Dark matter “densities” as anomalies may have affected this pull
    My conjecture is more about the axis of our solar system at 60º to the plain of our MW. I believe it is entirely possible that not only is this solar disc of ours tumbling, forward or reverse head over toe, but that also we actually may be rotating along an axis @ perpendicular to our direction of travel. It is MORE likely that we are rotating along some other vector of forces than that our plain is staying at the 60º windshield angle around our center.

    What DJ has also obviously depicted incorrectly is that our planets are following our sun in the direction as shown. All our planets have this equal speed relative to any other viewpoint outside of our solar system disc, therefore the plain of our rotation is at the exact same plain along our disc as our sun is, not following behind. For more information on this go to Phil Plait’s BAD ASTRONOMY answers to some of DJs depictions, his website http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/index.html
    for clarification.

    What I applaud, even though slightly incorrect, is DJs effort to address these things visually, which garner so much dialogue and response. It’s not that we fail, but what we learn from this, which matters! Thx DJ, great work!

  30. Lets keep it simple. Our solar system is traveling at roughly a 60º angle in the direction of our movement through our MW spiral. We are also moving slightly upward (and downward) from this plain of the spiral, @ 25,000LY in distance – and downward, BUT this should, by most calculations only happen @ 4 times per “orbit” around the center (our own MW black hole!) Where we are located, the “thickness of our spiral wave reaches @ 100,000 LYs and this cannot change without the existing gravitational methodology modifying itself. The stronger of the forces will always pull our solar mass back towards the center of our MW spiral swirl. Always. However with the mass inertia of the upward vertical deviation, the correction requires a downward deviation as well.

    However, there can be no inward or outward of the helical spiral DJ is showing because mathematically you would need to be adding energy and subtracting energy to speed up our rotational vector for this to occur.

    Unless there is some other force central to the Helix he shows at work, this is mathematically impossible. Like the shuttle, losing velocity will decrease the orbit, and gaining velocity will increase an orbit. We, our solar system, has no such propulsion unit, therefor the helical twisting DJ provides is patently false.

    The reasons for our amplitude deviations toward the center plain of our swirling disc are possible for three causes.
    1. our initial mass capture into the MW swirl still has vector forces acting upon our rotational forces of capture
    2. other near by pass collisions of other, large star systems fly-bys millions of millions of years ago may have enacted the deviation
    3. Dark matter “densities” as anomalies may have affected this pull
    My conjecture is more about the axis of our solar system at 60º to the plain of our MW. I believe it is entirely possible that not only is this solar disc of ours tumbling, forward or reverse head over toe, but that also we actually may be rotating along an axis @ perpendicular to our direction of travel. It is MORE likely that we are rotating along some other vector of forces than that our plain is staying at the 60º windshield angle around our center.

    What DJ has also obviously depicted incorrectly is that our planets are following our sun in the direction as shown. All our planets have this equal speed relative to any other viewpoint outside of our solar system disc, therefore the plain of our rotation is at the exact same plain along our disc as our sun is, not following behind. For more information on this go to Phil Plait’s BAD ASTRONOMY answers to some of DJs depictions, his website http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/index.html
    for clarification.

    What I applaud, even though slightly incorrect, is DJs effort to address these things visually, which garner so much dialogue and response. It’s not that we fail, but what we learn from this, which matters! Thx DJ, great work!

  31. Lets keep it simple.

    Our solar system is traveling at roughly a 60º angle in the direction of our movement through our MW spiral. We are also moving slightly upward (and downward) from this plain of the spiral, @ 25,000LY in distance – and downward.

    BUT this should, by most calculations, only happen @ 4 times per “orbit” around the center (our own MW black hole!) Where we are located, the “thickness of our spiral wave reaches @ 100,000 LYs and this cannot change without the existing gravitational methodology modifying itself. The stronger of the forces will always pull our solar mass back towards the center of our MW spiral swirl. Always.

    However with the mass “inertia” of the upward ‘vertical’ deviation along our rotational axis, the correction requires a downward deviation as well.

    However, there can be no inward- or outward deviation of the helical spiral DJ is showing, because mathematically you would need to be adding energy -and subtracting energy- somehow, to speed up our rotational vector for this to occur.

    Unless there is some other force central to the Helix of our rotation he shows at work, this is mathematically impossible. Like the shuttle, losing velocity by rocket burn opposite our direction of travel will decrease the orbit, and gaining velocity will increase an orbit distance. We, our solar system, has obviously no such intrinsic ‘propulsion unit”, nope, even the mighty photons themselves will NOT DO THIS- therefor the helical twisting DJ provides is patently false.

    The reasons for our amplitude deviations from and to the center plain of our swirling disc are possible for three possible causes:
    1. our initial mass capture into the MW swirl, like all others, still has previous vector energy forces acting upon our rotational forces of capture
    2. other near-by past collisions of other, large star systems fly-bys, millions of millions of years ago in our direct vicinity may have enacted the deviation
    3. Dark matter “densities” throughout space as anomalies may have affected this pull (OK, who is to say?)

    My conjecture is more about the axis of our solar system at 60º to the plain of our MW. I believe it is entirely possible that not only is this solar disc of ours tumbling, forward -or reverse- head over toe, but that also we actually may be rotating along an axis @ perpendicular to our direction of travel. It is MORE likely that we are rotating along some other vector of forces than that our plain is staying at the 60º ‘windshield’ angle around our MW center.

    What DJ has also obviously depicted incorrectly is that our planets are “following” our sun in the direction as shown. All our planets have this equal speed, relative to any other viewpoint outside of our solar system disc, therefore the plain of our rotation is at the exact same plain along our disc as our sun is, with our planets not following behind.

    For more information on this go to Phil Plait’s BAD ASTRONOMY answers to some of DJs depictions, his website http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/index.html
    for clarification.

    What I applaud, even though slightly incorrect, is DJs effort to address these things visually, which garner so much dialogue and response. It’s not that we fail, but what we learn from this, which matters! Thx DJ, great work!

  32. I agree. With DJ Sadhu’s knowledge combined with this knowledge DJ Sadhu should be able to create a perfectly correct animation as well, which would be really awesome!

  33. at the end of the day eerh! bottom line eerh! whatever in order for this to be precise we’d have to know the shape of the border of the universe and its’ movement in relation(?) to us to make sense of the shebang.oh yes and what’s after it as well.

Leave a Reply

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