Previously in a Galaxy nearby…
There has been quite the shit storm about the Solar System videos I made two years ago (1 & 2). I kind of expected that, had my umbrella ready and watched it all hit the fan. When an ‘unschooled noob’ like myself meddles with science and starts making claims, it’s hard for those who have invested years in education not to get annoyed.
Since I am not a scientist, my job and funding are not on the line, and I can make videos about whatever I want, even if that means mixing personal beliefs with scientific-looking stuff. A lot of people related to the personal beliefs (like the one that everything in Universe is connected) and a lot did not. Most certainly not the scientists, who usually only touch the ‘provable stuff’ and stay away from stuff you ‘feel is true’. Not entirely a bad thing, I’d rather not live in a building built by someone who only ‘felt’ it would stay standing instead of doing the actual calculations. The downside is, as I found out, that this mixing kind of throws out the baby with the Bhat water. So let’s summarize some stuff from these first two videos, the criticism, and where I stand now.
Our Solar System is a Vortex showed the helical patterns of the planets over time and connected it with other helical patterns found elsewhere.
-- The planets are in the wrong order! Yes, I totally screwed up two orbits right before rendering the video. Out of millions of viewers maybe 50 noticed, but they’re right. But, this should not make you not see the point.
-- It’s a helix, not a vortex! Maybe, but you get the point, right? Also this should not make you not see the point.
-- The sun is not like a comet! Well, it kind of is, actually. Even NASA used the term “like a comet“.
-- The heliocentric model is not “wrong”! I agree that to a certain degree it is a matter of “frame of reference”, but I am still of the opinion that gives a “wrong” impression, or “incomplete” for that matter. I’m willing to take it down a notch and say there’s more to reality than the heliocentric dinner-plate diagrams. Fair enough?
-- The sun does not lead the planets! In this case, you comment on the wrong video. It’s the other video that demonstrates the cone shaped model. After reading the Plait article a lot of folks rushed to comment what they just read (about 24 times “all wrong”), not even noticing that in this video the planets are nicely lined up.
-- The angle with the Galaxy is 60 degrees, not 90! There is no galaxy in this video, so what angle? Maybe the angle relative to the travel direction, but more on that later. Again, reading an article, rushing, blabla, and not even looking closely.
-- This is religious crap! Hahaha, I can assure you I am NOT religious. Maybe spiritually minded, but that’s like the opposite of religious.
-- You should be in jail for misleading people! Really, someone actually said that. She (yeah, she) should make a great fascist, throwing people in jail for an idea.
The second video, Our Galaxy is a Vortex demonstrated the “Bhat model”, with helical patterns, the sun leading the planets etc etc. Funny, although most details that were cause for the shit storm were in this video, most comments were on the other one.
-- The sun does not lead the planets! That may be the case. I’m open to the idea that it does, but I have yet to find absolute proof for it.
-- The angle with the Galaxy is 60 degrees! At 2:55 in the video I show how this could be the result of the upward angle of the Sun’s path.
-- The sun’s path around the Galaxy itself is not helical! That may be. It’s surely not a straight line, we most certainly travel above and below the galactic plane, and I would not be surprised if there were more components to this pattern. Some say it is, and connect this to electromagnetism. But it is certainly not ‘mainstream’ to think this way.
-- It’s only a change in frame of reference! In a way, yes. But can it be “all wrong” and at the same time only a change of perspective? The confusing part is that some claim the helical model is “nothing new”, and other claim it’s “all wrong”. Go figure.
I totally get why some people responded furiously. The claims in the videos are quite strong, and stuff got dragged that is not in the domain of science (like questions about the meaning of life). And the tone, yes the attitude….
So what was the point?
Out of all these wacky ideas in the first two videos there’s only one that’s most important to me. No, it’s not whether the solar system’s path is a wobble or a helix. No, it’s not whether the sun ‘leads’ the planets or not. No, it’s not the ‘pictures of leaves’. As this guy Ché Pasa understood right away, it’s the impression that the standard diagram gives.
It is how we see the solar system in our mind’s eye.
For me, the difference between a stationary looking dinner plate model and this dynamic, spiraling model was too huge to ignore. If you ask anyone what they see when they think of the solar system, they will probably describe something like this:
Obviously, I think there’s much more to it than that. Better yet, I think the helical model is quite provable. So, I decided to make another video demonstrating this helical pattern, but this time without the ‘wacky claims’. Just to get the point across: we’re moving, folks! I decided to dial it down a notch, leave out all the debatable details, no furious claims, no stepping on toes, no ‘pictures of leaves’, just the helical model. And make it art.
Here is Solar System 2.0 -- a ‘new’ way of looking at our solar system. Sure, the knowledge that we’re moving may have been out there somewhere… but not the image.
C’mon, now don’t tell me this was exactly how you always imagined it was.
Did you notice that from 2:05 you can actually see BOTH models? I included this shot just to show how dramatic this ‘change of perspective’ can be. Here’s the heliocentric model put into a helical frame of reference:
Although this is kind of “my own interpretation” of the 60 degree angle (no, not again!) it could work. But even if you disagree, this should not make you not see the point.
Also, did you notice there were no ‘wacky claims’ and no ‘pictures of leaves’? Don’t get me wrong here, I still believe it’s all connected, still read David Icke, still believe other woowoo stuff -- it’s just not in this video. So what I would like is to see this video to be judged by its contents, and not to be debunked because the author ‘has David Icke on his site’.
“Peer review #01”
I recently had an email conversation with Rhys Taylor, an astrophysicist who also wrote an article about the first video. He’s seems like quite a nice guy with a great sense of humor. And he actually managed to see past the wacky stuff and notice something of a point. He also made his own version, and pointed out that there were similarities:
He explained to me how it all had worked from ‘their’ perspective, and why everyone reacted the way they did.
“I don’t think it’s fair to say that discrediting the other stuff on your website was not relevant. You made quite an explicit link between the motion of the planets and DNA and other organic structures. In effect, you claimed that your alternative source model provides evidence for a pseudo-scientific idea about the Fibonacci sequence. That was never going to go down well“.
But he also wrote: “I did, of course, get extremely annoyed by the promotion of this nonsensical alternative [cone shaped] model, but I wanted to make it absolutely clear that this helical-path business is perfectly correct.”
Sure, and I explained to him how it all had worked from my perspective, and why I made this new video. He blogged about this conversation here.
Here are some selective quotes from our conversation:
Rhys: “First, you presented the idea of helical paths as though it were some revolutionary new model. You could have very easily checked with more or less any astronomer who would have told you that we already know this is the case. True, a shiny animation did not exist to show it, but that, as I said, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t known. That doesn’t mean the video wasn’t worthwhile either, only that it should have been expressed differently. […] I do think Plait was right to call you out -- even if he missed a pretty big point that the motion of the Solar System is rarely illustrated. Most of the problems with the original could, and should, have been easily prevented. It’s still a very nice rendering of the motion of the Solar System, but in context it was saying, “I’m an unqualified DJ who’s overturned all of astronomy“.”
Me: “The point is how people ‘see’ the solar system. Although the helical paths may have been known to astronomers and astrophysicists (and part of the public), what people ‘see’ when they think about the solar system is in my opinion incomplete. I doubt even astronomers see the solar system like the dynamic helical system as shown in my video, even though they may have all the facts that support it. I’m really hoping this “Solar System 2.0” concept is getting the point across without shooting the idea in the foot again. […] Since I personally experienced that “aha moment” when I first found out the diagrams I had been watching all my life told only half the story, I’m willing to be that “nutter” as long as this becomes common knowledge.”
Me: “And how come, even though the standard model is ‘correct’ and ‘complete’… you had to come up with a completely new animation to show the old model is okay? Because there was no such video… and that’s what I find annoying. “Science” quickly jumps onto the “it’s all wrong” bandwagon… and then you have to go and tinker to personally make the first “correct” version (oh the angle is a bit different) The complete model should have been out there all along! Noo, let’s debunk DjSadhu, and then make the correct version -- for the first time!”
Rhys: “Well, as I wrote in the article : ” What honestly surprises me is that this is so incredibly popular on the internet. If you weren’t aware that the Sun orbits the center of the galaxy -- which, since the planets orbit it, necessitates that they trace out helical paths -- then the education system has seriously failed. I have been accused of sounding jealous on this point, but unfortunately for me my statement is absolutely true. Honestly, it was so obvious to me that the planets trace out helical paths that I’m still amazed people find this such a revelation. Any object moving in a circular path around a moving center MUST trace out a helix. I find this so obvious I really don’t get why it needs to be stated, let alone visualised. But apparently I’m wrong, and it does. That’s why people like me and Plait are going to get pretty riled if you (intentionally or otherwise) claim that there’s something wrong with the heliocentric model -- there isn’t, it’s purely a choice of reference frame.[…] The fact that the Sun and the Solar System orbit the galactic center ought to be considered as ordinary as the Earth going round the Sun. Your latest video has my full support. You’re clearly correct that large numbers of people aren’t aware that the Solar System moves through space -- or if they are, they haven’t realised exactly what that means. Your video is a great way of demonstrating that.” (emphasis added)
Full article here.
So now what, Solar System 2.0?
Like the cartoon above showed, I’m kind of on this silly quest for a new way to look at our habitat in space. It’s not a matter of words, it’s a matter of images.
“Solar System 2.0” is my attempt to get ‘mainstream’ to accept this other way of looking at our solar system.
It is real. Why is it not out there?
Sure, there are some videos about the helical model, but the authors are mostly considered nutters, like me.
In defense of the heliocentric model I’ve heard arguments like “it’s easier to use this frame of reference if you want to launch a satellite of space craft, it doesn’t matter”. Well, normal folks don’t launch space craft, but they do have this mental picture of our solar system -- and they could easily see the helical model instead. From personal experience I know that changing this mental picture can also change how you feel when you look at the stars or the sun for instance.
Regardless of my other opinions, this new “Solar System 2.0” image could easily be widely accepted. I left my personal beliefs out of the video intentionally. Yes, in my personal experience the helical paths, DNA, life, Universe are all connected. Hell, I would not be surprised if one day the discovery is made that the entire Universe is conscious.
Rhys: “Sadhu and I are never going to agree on that. And you know what ? That’s absolutely fine. Sadhu does still have opinions I profoundly disagree with, and that’s OK. If we can’t get along with people who have irrational, harmless beliefs, there’s very little hope for ever persuading those with genuinely dangerous ideas.”
Yes, for the record, and just because I can’t resist the temptation: I believe aliens and UFO‘s exist, the moon landing was a hoax, most vaccines contain mercury and are bad for you, I don’t use fluoride, avoid aspartame because it’s poisonous (did you know Donald Rumsfeld was Mr. Aspartame?), I don’t eat meat, I believe in reincarnation and a consciousness-based Universe, the Illuminati control the world, most world leaders are psychopaths and satanists, the educational system is crap, media is manipulated and used for social engineering, Africa is being raped, as are the Palestinians, and Hitler did not commit suicide in 1945 but fled to Argentina. And I just love Clif High (the smartest crazy old guy I know).
But, like I said, my personal beliefs are not on trial here -- the helical model is.