17 Seconds that will blow your mind!

My mind is not blown. Sorry. A basic understanding of galaxies and some fundamental things of the universe should be enough to realize the Sun is indeed moving as well...it's merely a matter of what reference point one uses to observe all what's in motion. So..rather underwhelming little movie, IMO.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Is the general pattern of motion not correct, though?

Well if the angle of the ecliptic to the galaxy was changed from 90 degrees to 60 degrees, that would make the animation correct as far as movement with in the galaxy. But since it shows 90 degrees, then no, it's not correct.

Also, the Milky way galaxy is moving relative to the CMB, and this motion is not shown, though if that were the only flaw I wouldn't call it wrong. However that's a pretty big omission as it's the largest motion of all.

en.wikipedia.org...

The orbital speed of the Solar System about the center of the Galaxy is approximately 251 km/s.

Milky Way speed relative to CMB rest frame 552 ± 6 km/s

So leaving out the 552 km/s speed and only showing the 251 km/s speed isn't exactly accurate either.

reply to post by Druscilla
Thank goodness at least one other person recognized that video is wrong! Starred.

I've seen that before, and while it is pretty, and in some basic ways the idea is right, most of it is wrong I'm afraid.

As has been mentioned, we (the solar system) are not tilted at 90 degrees from the galactic plane. We are at 60 degrees, as has been pointed out.

Also, the sun is moving at about 220 km/s in that orbit around the center of the Milky Way galaxy, where as the orbit of the planets around the sun are a lot slower.

So a more correct view of that video would be to tilt it back about 30 degrees, but keep the motion of everything going to the right of the screen. Also, you would need to either slow the planets down quite a bit, or speed up the sun's motion quite a bit.

when you do that the result is: very stretch lines, and not pretty looking sine waves.

Any point on a rotating circle (like an orbiting planet) will trace out a sine or cosine wave over time.

For example, imagine an LED light bulb on the sidewall of a car tire at night. When the tire starts turning, you could say that the light would go around in a circle. However, think about that car driving away from you. the path the light would trace out would be a sine wave, NOT a circle.

Here is a website that has an application (a java-app) showing this sine wave movement:
Sine Wave Geometry

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I didnt even think about the fact that the galaxy was moving to. It would be interesting to see an accurate extended animation that shows the movements of the solar system, and the galaxy.

Originally posted by osirys
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I didnt even think about the fact that the galaxy was moving to. It would be interesting to see an accurate extended animation that shows the movements of the solar system, and the galaxy.

You will probably never see one which is completely "accurate". Why? Because people are interested in the Earth which usually isn't even visible in any accurate model of the solar system you'd put on a video monitor. This class exercise illustrates some of the scale problems with making an accurate model:

www.ncsu.edu...

Another area of difficulty for students is the relative sizes and distances involved. The radius of the sun is approximately 218 times as large as the Earth, so any visible scale model of the Earth will not fit on the same page or computer monitor image as the Sun. You can simulate this with a ball with a 2 cm diameter (e.g. a large marble) to represent the Earth , then, ask students to figure out the size of ball they need for the sun. (It would need to be 4.36 meters in diameter). Then, using the same 2 cm diameter marble to represent the Earth, ask how far away the center of the sun should be. (It would need to be 234.81 meters away - more than two football fields laid end to end!) So the students cannot create a scale model, but must instead adjust the scale to fit the display medium while maintaining visibility of all features.

Then when you expand the scale to include the huge motion of the sun through space, everything gets even smaller.

Also the motion of the Earth around the sun is far more complex than most people realize. so if you really wanted to accurately plot your motion through space, you'd have over a dozen motions to consider, some of which are mentioned in this interesting video:

Earth's motion around the Sun, not as simple as I thought

If you watch that video, you begin to get some idea of how complicated the motions really are.

I tried to find an accurate animation of the Earth movement though space, but haven't found one yet. Too many of the search results go back to that Nassim Haramein video which I feel badly about, since many people might think that's correct, when it's not.

At least this particular video doesn't have Nassim warbling on about how we were all deceived and lied to.

Originally posted by trollz
Uh... I'm kindof confused here. What exactly about this was amazing? Did people not know that planets revolve around the sun or that they're all moving in space? I thought this was common knowledge.

Welly welly welly well....... It doesn't take much to confound the person who boasts of a 142 IQ in their sig now, does it?

Don't worry, people... This person's IQ is soooooo high... that they cannot even understand us normal folk. As soon as their IQ (ego) inflates to a certain point, he or she will no longer be able to communicate with us and our stupid "mouth words", for he or she will have ascended to telepathy. That's why this incredibly smart person didn't mention how the video was wrong... He or she was going to type in some totally non-snooty comment like "I'm confused, didn't people know that the solar system was at a 60 degree angle compared to tbe milky way?", but he/she telepathically and forgot that he/she was dealing with a bunch of non-telepathic ogres drooling over our keyboards...

Now I know what your thinking, but... but... It's not their fault for forgetting! How could it be?? They have an IQ of 142, it says so right in their signature!!! No, its our fault for being so stupid!!! If we could rise to the level of this great ascended master, then maybe we could develop telepathy too!!! You have no idea how hard it is for this person to communicate with us! Can you communicate with ants? No! Didn't think so! Well that's what its like for someone with an IQ of 142 to talk to a bunch of lugheads! It puts a lot of strain on their soul, but he/she dgoes through the pain just to bless us with the divine knowledge that can only be taught by a person with an IQ of 142.

What about 143 you say? No, that wouldn't work! Anything higher than 142 makes your brain get so large, it expands too much, and it takes too long for signals to move from one side of the brain to the other, so once you go over 142, its like your going backward! So, just, shut up and listen to this wise person! Can't you see how wise they are?!?!?! I mean jeez... They just came in here and passive aggressively insulted every person who was impressed by the video, and in a way that was totally not pretensious at all... What more do you need! Don't you know that ridicule by facetious means is a sign of an evolved being?

What??? You're telling me this is just yet another jackass who likes to fancy themselves clever and give themselves little ego boosts here and there by quietly insulting people at every turn? But... But... It says how smart they are, right in their signature like a big flashing colorful advertisement! And you tell me, what kind of person goes around like a bigshot, advertising how smart they a- Ohhhhh.......... I get it now.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Well hooooolyyyyyyy crap! Sound the alarms! This video must be taken down! Cause I pulled out my protractor and put it up to the screen and by golly it really IS off by 30 degrees! I swear if I see that lying rat who made this video, I will go flying across the room like a spear with my hands aimed at his throat and I'm gonna choke the life out of 'im while screaming "You lied to me, you sonuvabitch!!!!! How dare you?!?!?!?! Yes, it IS still amazing that we ride the sun through space like we are flying on a freaking spaceship through the galaxy on some wild adventure.... But you got the angle all wrong!!! Die, you BASTARD!!!!"

reply to post by 3n19m470


I'm glad you know how to use a protractor. Maybe instead of killing the guy, you can teach him how to use one. However wouldn't you expect him to already know how to use a protractor, since he's proven all mainstream physics wrong already (according to him, at least)? Using a protractor should be pretty simple compared to that, right?

reply to post by 3n19m470


Why so much anger? Its just a video you know. So it wasn't accurate and somebody informed us, shouldn't we be thankful?

I still like the video. You shouldnt let someone on the internet get you so riled. Most of us can see through the trolling to good criticism anyways. We dont need people dripping anger and sarcasm to get the point across.

reply to post by 3n19m470


That was brilliant

...bahaha

reply to post by osirys


in a 2d view (from the side) its a "wave"...in a 3d/4d view (from side) its a helix. This was NEVER taught to me in school and I'm pretty upset that it wasn't...I feel lied to because obviously the flat 2d from above model is absolutely inefficient at explaining the motion of our planets...the helix model helps explain what is happening so much better.

It's no wonder education is in shambles...we have horrible educational models that are either A) designed that way to keep up stupid or B) designed that way out of incompetence and ignorance....I'm not sure which...

The helix model implies that the sun too is also pathing in a helix and so too the galaxy etc...this implies that NOTHING inhabits the exact same spot in space twice...

I'm wondering if the Mayans knew the "ebb and flow of the earths orbit" through space and constructed their calander and baktuns after this...

Originally posted by Sly1one
in a 2d view (from the side) its a "wave"...in a 3d/4d view (from side) its a helix. This was NEVER taught to me in school and I'm pretty upset that it wasn't...I feel lied to because obviously the flat 2d from above model is absolutely inefficient at explaining the motion of our planets...the helix model helps explain what is happening so much better.

Wait a minute. The idea that a point on a rotating circle traces put a Sine wave is certainly taught in schools (at least it was taught to me, and was taught to my daughter 30 years later -- and neither of us were in "advanced geometry" or "advanced trigonometry".

Here is what I said about that before in another post (posted above):

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Any point on a rotating circle (like an orbiting planet) will trace out a sine or cosine wave over time.

For example, imagine an LED light bulb on the sidewall of a car tire at night. When the tire starts turning, you could say that the light would go around in a circle. However, think about that car driving away from you. the path the light would trace out would be a sine wave, NOT a circle.

Here is a website that has an application (a java-app) showing this sine wave movement:
Sine Wave Geometry

As for the 3D-4D/helix part that you are describing, just add an gentle up and down oscillation to the system in the Sine wave java-app in the link above, and you get a helix. Consider the car tire/LED light thought experiment I mentioned above. Add another motion (a slight swerving of the car), and that LED light would trace a path similar to what we see in the OP video.

But the basic concept is fundamental: A point on a rotating circle -- a circle with an added lateral motion (like a wheel rolling down a rod) will trace out a Sine wave as the wheel rolls -- NOT a circle.

Originally posted by Sly1one
reply to post by osirys

 

I feel lied to because obviously the flat 2d from above model is absolutely inefficient at explaining the motion of our planets.

How is it inefficient? It's efficient enough for us to predict the planets' positions for hundreds of years ahead (relative to the Sun or the Earth, of course) or to send robotic spacecraft to them. Planets in the Solar System move under the Sun's gravity. Motion through the galaxy has no practical effect on them (unless we pass very very close to a star).

Teaching the heliocentric model is not lying.

P.S. I'll correct that: scientists used 3D model, but centered on the Sun or the Solar System barycentre. The 2D model is a simplification that can be sufficient for many purposes, just like representing the orbits as circles when they are actually ellipses.

With the sun moving up and down thru the galactic plain (over millions of years) I always thought that the planets corkscrew around the sun on its travels, with all the planets moons doing a double corkscrew, with the corkscrew at an angle to the galactic plain, which is why aiming a probe at another solar body is complicated?

it's not "wrong", they're both correct. it's a matter of perspective.

i've long said what appears linear is actually cyclical, yet what appears cyclical is actually a spiral.

just remember: space can only be ascertained when at least two objects exist in reference to each other.

the more objects we use, the larger the context becomes.

all are valid.

reply to post by osirys


Excellent find! Thank you for posting this.

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by Sly1one
reply to post by osirys

 

I feel lied to because obviously the flat 2d from above model is absolutely inefficient at explaining the motion of our planets.

How is it inefficient? It's efficient enough for us to predict the planets' positions for hundreds of years ahead (relative to the Sun or the Earth, of course) or to send robotic spacecraft to them. Planets in the Solar System move under the Sun's gravity. Motion through the galaxy has no practical effect on them (unless we pass very very close to a star).

Teaching the heliocentric model is not lying.

P.S. I'll correct that: scientists used 3D model, but centered on the Sun or the Solar System barycentre. The 2D model is a simplification that can be sufficient for many purposes, just like representing the orbits as circles when they are actually ellipses.

edit on 28-9-2012 by wildespace because: (no reason given)

It may not be "lying" but I don't know why you wouldn't also teach your students about the other models...its like they did the circular model and left it at that, knowing damn well that is not the full picture...One model correctly describes our movement through space and the other only describes part of it and from a perspective by which there is an illusion the sun is stationary...

Originally posted by Sly1one
It may not be "lying" but I don't know why you wouldn't also teach your students about the other models...its like they did the circular model and left it at that, knowing damn well that is not the full picture...One model correctly describes our movement through space and the other only describes part of it and from a perspective by which there is an illusion the sun is stationary...

All motion is relative from the viewpoint of the observer.

Like I said above, if you trace a point moving along a circumference around a center point (from the perspective of that center point being stationary), then that point traces out a circle -- like a point on a stationary spinning wheel.

If that center point and circle are given a lateral movement (if the wheel is rolling away from your perspective), than that point on the circumference traces out a sine wave, not a circle.

That's not only true for the orbit of the Earth, but it is true for any revolving point on a circle in geometry in general. It's a "geometry thing", not just an "Earth orbit thing".