The Helical Model - Our solar system is a vortex!!!

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   
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.

Think about this for a minute. In this diagram (link provided) 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.


CONT'D....
www.djsadhu.com...

edit on 3-1-2013 by WaKingLieFE because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-1-2013 by Gemwolf because: Removed all caps title




posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:59 AM
link   
The Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat

www.feandft.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:01 AM
link   
the trouble with this is that there are no absolute positions. speed and positions are relative, so the best we can do is declare one thing the standard (our sun, as it is by far the largest object with the most influence on all the planets in the solar system) and base all measurements off of that.

there are other ways we could measure and define our solar system, but heliocentric makes the most practical sense, like rounding off pi to 4 sig figs, not a perfect representation, but workable.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:25 AM
link   
thanx for posting this, loved the video. not sure of what significance this is but very interesting. i am surprised not many have responded. s+f



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   
its not like the old model is WRONG, its just a 2D view. Then you include another axis - the sun's own vector - its own movement throughout the universe, so it gives you a 3D view of the movement of the same model.

Its not one is wrong or right, you just dont explain the 3D view to a kid in prep school. You teach them the basics... because the 3D view has a lot more questions than answers and you'd have to explain all the movements and forces at play ending with actually answered questions, so ppl kinda stick to the 2D when explaining the model. It simpler and gives you the correct idea of the position of the planets and their movement in relation to our sun.

The 3D view is not to give the planets to sun movement, but to give the sun > to the rest movement.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 





the trouble with this is that there are no absolute positions. speed and positions are relative, so the best we can do is declare one thing the standard (our sun, as it is by far the largest object with the most influence on all the planets in the solar system) and base all measurements off of that.


There is another part to this that makes it more complex in some ways and simpler in others. Because, apparently, the sun, in moving through space, is moving around Sirius, which itself is moving around another star, all in sprials within spirals, it's actually rather beautiful to think about.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 

i agree it's beautiful in it's mechanics, but the sun remains the only viable unifying point. maybe in a few decades if we start to venture out of our own solar system, then a local cluster map should be made and defined, but there is no denying that our solar system is heliocentric.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
 


No, it's off, and not just a little off. Conventional education says that that 2d solar system does NOT move through space, lol.

I see what you're saying, but presenting that 2d model f***s everything up, and using children as an excuse to present misinformation? Come on....
edit on 3-1-2013 by WaKingLieFE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by WaKingLieFE
 



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.

That's not true. They do hide. Mars is only visible 1 year out of 2. I know, I am an astronomer, I watch planets going. Venus is often hidden behind the Sun - it is actually going to hide back, as we speak. On 6/6/12 it was between us and the sun, well now it's going back behind the sun. Mercury acts the same way. Each years Jupiter goes, relative to Earth, behind the Sun, so does Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and the dwarf planet Pluto.
edit on 3-1-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


Yeah, I questioned that part of the article myself and wanted to leave it out, which is exactly why I linked you all with the actual work of Dr. Keshava Bhat who is the man behind this vortex model. There's also a man by the name of Nassim Haramein who is all over this new science, I posted a video below.

I think many of you are missing that link provided in my second post.

www.feandft.com...
edit on 3-1-2013 by WaKingLieFE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by WaKingLieFE
 

OI! that taurus shape is very similar to the theory of dimensionality i've been working on for several years, though it's less complex. his shape is incorrect, not accounting for the true nature of time.

time to look into getting my work officially notarized.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Lmao,

Mr. Sholtz, please stop bein such a shill and provide us with some substance.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Ah, Richard Hoagland over at Enterprise Mission will likely be beside himself at this news. He has lots of theories of vortexes in universal constructions of nature, including anomaly constructions he's traced in hurricanes. A nice thread, I'll subscribe to this one for sure.
edit on 3-1-2013 by Aleister because: spelling



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


Richard Hoagland is a bit of a quack, but at least he's getting people to ask more questions.

I'll be back to edit this post with some insight that backs up my reasoning on Hoagland.



rense.com...
edit on 3-1-2013 by WaKingLieFE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by WaKingLieFE
 


He has his quack moments, but is entertaining. I wish he'd throw up more videos on his site, it seems to change at a snail's pace over the years. His most interesting "find" was that very tiny fossil-like image that one of the rovers found on its first days - and then buffed away. But this is aside from the topic here.

Our solar system is a vortex, I really like that combination of words.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
It seems to me that the spiral vortex model still agrees with our 2D flat heliocentric model... all it does is show the solar system's motions from a "bird's eye-view" perspective instead, thus resulting in a more 3D model when we step outside our own origin of viewpoint (earth) ?



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


According to the 2D model of conventional science and astronomy, our solar system does NOT move through space.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaKingLieFE
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Lmao,

Mr. Sholtz, please stop bein such a shill and provide us with some substance.

fine. basically time isn't something that exists on it's own, nor is it a dimension by itself, but rather the effect of dimensions moving through each other.

the flaw with current models is that they assume the existence of time as a property, instead of an effect occurring between our dimension, and the one directly above us.

light has a finite limit because nothing can exceed rate of the 3rd dimension passing through the 4th (which creates time similar to how 2d pictures passing through the 3rd dimension create a movie) without going backwards through time (also observable in movies, if you try and make an object go across the screen "faster" than the framerate, it will go backwards instead).

i have come up with a very complex shape where the largest dimension and the smallest dimension (depending on perspective) reach a point where they are the same, which allows for a natural friction between the other dimensions to occurr. since we occupy a dimension to an odd power, we perceive even numbered dimensions as moving "backwards" relative to us, which is why current models have assumed that the 4th dimension is absolute time. the 4th dimension passing through the third dimension creates time for us, and the rate at which this happens creates the fastest possible velocity observable.

relativity can further be refined as not just applying to objects traveling the speed of light, but ANY two objects who's combined difference in velocity equates to a value greater than the speed of light.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge
It seems to me that the spiral vortex model still agrees with our 2D flat heliocentric model... all it does is show the solar system's motions from a "bird's eye-view" perspective instead, thus resulting in a more 3D model when we step outside our own origin of viewpoint (earth) ?


Im thinking the animation is what is giving this impression....the trails seem to be adding the vortex effect. If im not mistaken they added pluto in there and the orbit looks off in the animation (it should have an incline). Im also wondering if the heliocentric theory is how astronomers can predict orbits and position of planets for view from earth. I really don't think they've been just using luck to find what they find with telescopes and im pretty sure some theories help them in finding things. All of this seems really off coming from an amateur perspective so pretty visuals (and incorrect orbits) do not help this theory.
edit on 3-1-2013 by topherman420 because: added text





new topics
top topics
 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join