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

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by WaKingLieFE
 


Did I miss the memo ?

So the heliocentric model claims that we sit stationary on a record album while the record album spins in the same spot too ?




posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by topherman420
 


Maybe my eyeballs are off then.

The vortex model in the video, to me, is showing the same predictable heliocentric movement of the planets around the sun... the only difference being a sideview and the trails behind showing the solar system movement of the spinning galaxy.

Or is this vortex model showing our solar system moving faster than the galaxy is spinning ?



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Again, you're not providing any substance to back up your claims in this thread.

I'm not going to reply to anymore of your posts, ignored you're obviously just trolling.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge
reply to post by topherman420
 


Maybe my eyeballs are off then.

The vortex model in the video, to me, is showing the same predictable heliocentric movement of the planets around the sun... the only difference being a sideview and the trails behind showing the solar system movement of the spinning galaxy.

Or is this vortex model showing our solar system moving faster than the galaxy is spinning ?


No I was agreeing with your eyeballs. The trails is what is giving this the appearance of this 'vortex theory' when in actuality its technically not supporting it lol. Also with the incorrect representation of pluto's orbit shows a bit of lack of thought on behalf of who came up with the video. It's unimpressive from a laymans perspective like mine I can imagine the inconsistencies some more experienced people can come up with. I will be following this thread im sure some educational info will pop up.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by topherman420
 


You guys are killin me, lol.

Go to the links.

The animation presented in the OP is just a glimpse into the visual of our "angular movement" spiraling vortex solar system.

The science behind it has to be studied and read through, which is why I posted the curriculum of Dr. Keshava Bhat.

I'll post it again.... third time, lol

www.feandft.com...


Research this information if you're interested, theres plenty out there backing this up, don't discredit this theory off that 'one' animated visual.
edit on 3-1-2013 by WaKingLieFE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaKingLieFE
reply to post by topherman420
 


You guys are killin me, lol.

Go to the links.

The animation presented in the OP is just a glimpse into the visual of our "angular movement" spiraling vortex solar system.

The science behind it has to be studied and read through, which is why I posted the curriculum of Dr. Keshava Bhat.

I'll post it again.... third time, lol

www.feandft.com...


Research this information if you're interested, theres plenty out there backing this up, don't develop insight off that animated visual.


Like I mentioned, myself and others are not well versed on some things and reading through unsorted information can be overwhelming, especially if you don't really know precisely where to start. I found this image:



Is this a more accurate model of how he sees the position of planets? Im not sure why the you tube video was even used when its not remotely close to the model he portrays there. I would like to see someone with a bit of knowledge of such things to sift through the info and be able to point out the inconsistencies so that I can read up on the pertinent points of each theory. And I was still curious on how the heliocentric model was used in predicting the planets orbits and positions to help with telescopic work on the ground and that would be a very big point on the side of the heliocentric model used today .



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by topherman420
 


That picture is somewhat correct, same with the animation I posted in the OP.

The sun in that video should be spiraling as well.

The Universe runs on Electricity, not Gravity.

Electric currents in Plasma, (99.999% of our observable Universe is Plasma), naturally form spiral, helical currents.

Think Fibonacci



EDIT TO ADD:

www.thunderbolts.info...

catiestewart.com...

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



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by WaKingLieFE
 

i posted the gist of my model, but i don't think you have the aptitude for such things. if you did, it's relevance would be apparent. i posted logical proofs and lay man descriptions referencing how movies (2d images) move through a 3rd dimension to create the illusion of time.

the helical model simply includes an extra vector not apparent unless you assume an outside perspective, it is actually space itself that moves past us, not the other way around. see relativity for more information.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaKingLieFE
reply to post by topherman420
 


That picture is somewhat correct, same with the animation I posted in the OP.

The sun in that video should be spiraling as well.

The Universe runs on Electricity, not Gravity.

Electric currents in Plasma (99.999% of our observable Universe is Plasma),
naturally form spiral, helical currents. Think Fibonacci


So in order to disprove heliocentric solar system I have to dismiss gravity for a vortex model to work? Alot of observations done of our solar system were based on some of these hypothesis like gravity. If the hypothesis were so gravely incorrect and we have and electric universe, wouldn't alot of these observations not happen since the information they based it on was flawed to begin with? Im sure you can see this is just going to confuse a layman like me even more then this does lol.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by topherman420
 

i think he read a few articles, thought "wow, that sounds cool", then began posting with nary a thought to how little he genuinely knows about the topic.

if you want to get technical, all interactions are carried out via "virtual particles", but we should steer clear of that because i think his head would explode.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


You're right, I don't know much about it at all, which is why I felt the urge to post the basis of it somewhere to raise some discussion.

I did understand what you were saying about time and how it doesn't exist on its own. This is quite clear when referencing string theory, correct?

I apologize for accusing you of trolling, but when you come out saying somebody's work is "incorrect" without providing any insight or even a link, you come across like you are.

Anyways, yeah, you're mind is definitely more chiseled in this field, and somehow I feel you agree with a lot of the science that has been presented, assuming you checked out Keshava Bhats work....



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Dig for the truth if you really want to find it.

Here, I found this article that may answer all of your questions in your last post about dismissing gravity for a vortex system to work.

www.holoscience.com...



*And yes, to Mr. Sholtz, lol, I'm just a messenger, not a chiseled spokesperson like yourself
(all fun, no hostility in that comment bud) I like to raise some kind of awareness to people to expand and discern for themselves, cause the only thing constant is change



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 





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.


The Universe is infinitely simple and complex at the same time. Complex for obvious reasons, simple, based on the application of "As Above, So Below." The study of sacred geometry gives you an appreciation for that fact and allows one to understand the processes of the galaxy from the study of an atom. Because the information is holographic and repeated on many levels of scale. That's why I like the helical model, it just makes sense to me.

To illustrate my point (and because I like the video)-pay attention to the similarities on either more extreme end of the scale.




posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by WaKingLieFE
 

no worries. i suppose i probably come across as an arrogant prick sometimes because of my firm assertions (it is unintentional). i've looked into the electric universe theory before, and some of it is intriguing, such as electrically powered stars, but it has been taken too far in many instances.

for example, plasma is highly influenced by magnetic fields, but it's a state of matter. i see no way for a comet to be affected in any major way by an electric field, it being solid and largely non-ferrous, claiming that the electric force guides them kinda falls flat on it's face.

gravity is a big mystery though. there is a force that exists between two masses, and it was named gravity, but what causes it is widely speculated on.

i'm not against the electric universe in principle, or because i wish to uphold the current theory (on the contrary, much of it is wrong, and the rest we don't understand), but because i don't think it is correct. i'm not above admitting that i'm wrong if the right evidence or arguments were put forward.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by WaKingLieFE
 


Thanks for the link

I'll check it out when I have more time
edit on 4-1-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
S+F op. been thinking along these lines for a while now....

Here is a interview, with Robert otey and matt presti on the santos bonacci show discussing this concept and the science there of....



This is a Beautiful concept and thinking about things this way instead of the 2d model and perhaps "knowing" this, is akin to a dimensional shift.

know that we are moving forward.
edit on 10-1-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wifibrains
This is a Beautiful concept and thinking about things this way instead of the 2d model and perhaps "knowing" this, is akin to a dimensional shift.

It's completely wrong. The planets are not trailing the sun as he shows in his second video right at the start. The heliocentric model of the solar system is not "2d." Why do you think planets can have positive or negative ecliptic latitudes? Because they're not orbiting precisely on the ecliptic, every planet has some degree of inclination. Furthermore, our solar system's direction of motion is not coincident with the ecliptic pole as depicted in the videos.

The solar apex, our solar system's direction of travel relative to the local stars projected onto the sky has the coordinates of about 18hr RA, +30 degrees Dec (books.google.com/books?id=RacoITLoz_oC&pg=PA350&lpg=PA350&dq=solar+apex+coordinates&source=bl&ots=Q58OU7qiM0&sig=Dmkn_a5aB_ehvan3Pv0i72t8d2E&hl=en&sa =X&ei=EA7LUNXgB6nE2gWxiYCwCA&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=solar%20apex%20coordinates&f=false ) whereas our north ecliptic pole has coordinates of about 18hr RA, +66.5 degrees Dec. Therefore, our planet is at some points in its orbit "ahead" of the sun in the sun's direction of travel, specifically this condition is at its peak when the sun's position along the ecliptic in our sky is at 6hr RA, in other words, at the June solstice.

Even if you consider the motion of the local standard of rest within the arms of our galaxy and look at the motion of our sun relative to the galactic center ( www.gb.nrao.edu... ) we are still not moving towards the ecliptic pole and we are still ahead of our sun at certain times of the year (in the latter case the vector of our direction of travel points to about 20h 57m, +47d 53' which is separated from our ecliptic pole by about 30 degrees and places us ahead of the sun relative to its direction of travel in August). This is in complete contradiction to the OP's video as well as its sequel, which depict the planets "trailing" the sun. That is simply not happening and is completely inconsistent with even the most rudimentary empirical data on the motions of the planets.
edit on 28-3-2013 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I don't believe the planets trail the sun, but are rather fixed within the solar systems magnetic orb and the whole orb itself moves through space orbiting something else or the center of the galaxy. Either way, we do not get back to the same point in time and space, ever, as common perseptions seem to dictate.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wifibrains
I don't believe the planets trail the sun, but are rather fixed within the solar systems magnetic orb and the whole orb itself moves through space orbiting something else or the center of the galaxy. Either way, we do not get back to the same point in time and space, ever, as common perseptions seem to dictate.

The motions of the planets are dictated by gravity, not magnetism. The videos made by the person the OP posted about do show the planets trailing the sun and that is the model being presented here.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


That's the accepted theory, there is no proof.





top topics
 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join