It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Our Solar System - Heliocentric, or... Helical? (MUST SEE - paradigm shift)

page: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   

ChaoticOrder
That video is a bit misleading according to this article:

Vortex motion: Viral video showing Sun's motion through galaxy is wrong

He's mainly just nitpicking about the fact that the plane of our solar system is tilted with respect to its motion, so the planets don't always stay behind the sun as depicted in this video. But the basic idea of the video is still correct as far as I can tell.


This is from your website:

Sadhu is claiming that heliocentrism is wrong, and that the motion of the planets around the Sun actually makes a vortex. What he actually means is a helix, not a vortex.




Thruthseek3r




posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


Did you even read what I said about the article? It's nitpicking certain aspects of the video, but the basic idea shown in the video is correct.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


Funny you should mention it, but 'Zero Sum' happens to be the true definition of Infinity.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Put in proper context - the Sun also moves in helical fashion. My post was meant to add clarity to the matter.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Wouldn't the galactic year, 226 million Earth years, gradually become less and less as the Sun gets pulled closer and closer towards the center of the galaxy?

Well I assume that the Sun gets pulled to the center of the galaxy because of the thought that there is a black hole at the center of the Milky Way that will eventually absorb everything in it.

I always find it amazing that we're blasting through space at amazing speeds, yet the distances are so vast we barely notice any difference from our vantage point on Earth.

Another question, what happens when the one deep space probe leaves the influence of the heliosphere? I thought there is a probe that was close to the edge of it. Will it be out of the influence of the Sun and be exposed, or reeled in by another entity's gravitational pull?



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Just posting so I can find this again. Have to show this to my kids!



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


Infinity and nothing are the same.. half of nothing is as infinite as twice it.

That's really where alice went, and that rabbit hole has very little to do with blue pills or machines that want to make us ever ready batteries.

but the problem is, how much are you willing to spend trying to understand the infinite? When you spend more time working out why nothing and everything is the same, and you neglect to consider that as mind numbingly insane it all is, you still need to feed the pooch or stick dead things in a large metal block to explode them in order to move that contraption around that gives you the ability to traverse large distances without getting blisters on your feet.... then you realise that everything, even infinity, are only as important as the things right in front of you right now.

the tesseract won't break if we don't look for it.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


This happens to be a tangential debate, but you obviously don't understand zero sum - the sum of all things zero. Infinity is a multitude of sets. Zero represents an inversion point within the system. And with that, you should be able to suss out my signature file.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Im not sure if some one already said this but this hypothesis is assuming that the sun direction of travel is perpendicular to its axis of rotation or to be more accurate to the orbital plane of the plant. But its not the equatorial plane of the galaxy is at an inclination of 60 degrees to the ecliptic plane. Looks cool but thats not how it works in the real world.
edit on 4-12-2013 by BGTM90 because: (no reason given)


Never mind, I actually went back and read the thread which I probably should have done in the first place and people already stated what I said sorry
edit on 4-12-2013 by BGTM90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Does the Sun and planets move through the galaxy? Yes. Does it mean heliocentric system is wrong? No. The planets still orbit the Sun due to its gravity, otherwise they'd just fly off into deep space (aha!) on a tangent, or drift through space randomly.

The makers of these videos want to level some woo-woo pseudoscience at you, while the reality behind their claims is much simpler. Everything is moving through space, but as there is no absolute point of reference, it's useful to employ local frames of reference. We use geocentric for observations of space from Earth, heliocentric for modelling the Solar System itself, galactic for modelling the Milky Way and its surroundings, and extragalactic for modelling galaxies and clusters.

When a Youtube video tells you that everything you've been taught is wrong, is when you need to take it with a grain of salt.

On the other hand, I made this video about gravity, showing how the trampoline analogy with balls is inadequate when visualising the curvature of spacetime:

(The basic idea in the video is that space is curved or bent towards the centre of mass)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Thank you for making this thread and for the vids ...I had looked for this the other day to try and explain to another member how we don't actually go around the sun but are in a spiral trailing the sun .S&F ....peace



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
So just to recap....

Galaxies should fly apart, but magically don't because of this invisible matter that nobody can see.

They say dark matter has to exist, even though you can't see it or measure it.

So then they say that dark matter can't exist because they haven't found any!

Then they say, well maybe it exists and we just missed it....LOLOLOL!! Scientists crack me up sometimes.

You could just call dark matter God and leave it at that. It would be just as accurate a description as this "dark matter" nonsense.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

Ummm...as per your question...What struck me was the 26,000 year precession cycle as the solar system looped in and out of the dense region of the galactic plane. 26,000 years............hmmm...where have I heard...THAT before?

You...led me there and so I was content to be led to your ever so...obvious inference........Mayan anyone?...........Anyone?

Oh...also when you combine that particular thought with the other inference, IE., "stellar wind" density then all sorts of other extrapolations reveal their bad selves......Are you...warming to my observation?

YouSir


edit on 5-12-2013 by YouSir because: Syntax adjustment



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

If you want to model this vortex, try universesandbox.com.... Fantastic, free program for astronomical modeling.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Cancerwarrior
 


Nice recap!

Since I don't believe "God" is something but everything, my science-ignorant gut instinctual wild speculation is that dark energy is thought (who's thought? all beings? I don't know) and dark matter are formless beings (gods, our higher selves, evolved aliens, take your pick). So trying to measure dark energy in a science lab is like trying to pick out that tiny egg shell fragment from the raw egg white, or trying to look directly at the floaty in your eye. :-P

A number of NDE's and many spiritual practitioners of all faiths and ages have shared the experience of "seeing all all at once". I think that is awareness riding on the thought energies (dark energies) of the cosmos and beyond. An infinite soup of mental continuums. Our/their existence/evolution/deevolution as formless beings is dark matter, "the unseen ones" (ghosts, the intermediate state, formless gods, other realms, etc.)

IMHO
Thanks for listening.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by YouSir
 


What struck me was the 26,000 year precession cycle as the solar system looped in and out of the dense region of the galactic plane.
Except it doesn't. Precession has nothing to do with the motion of the Solar System. It is due to the "wobble" of Earth's axis.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
The evolutionary framework


NewAgeMan
Here's a further explanation of the new paradigm of the fast moving earth and solar system yes even as an informed evolutionary trajectory through spacetime and thus through the zero point field or the vacuum field.



Which reminds me, that evolution is an integrative process, a process of continual differentiation or distinction and reintegration - may we catch up with ourselves and the best part of ourselves at last in the fullness of time and history and become the intended result of this entire process even within the largest context of the largest history within which we find ourselves already immersed.

You're either behind or under the wave or at it's very leading edge, and life is like that, it never stands still.

Onwards and upwards.,,



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Re: Motion relative to the Vacuum


Anyway, this idea and the paradigm shifting reframe involved, has given me an idea, as it relates to this motion as part of an interconnected comic evolutionary process, a metaphysical re-frame if you will regarding a fundamental aspect of our reality.

Ok, here goes..

For anything to "happen" or to occur, there must be motion. This is self evident.

But in order for something to have occurred, there must be a record of it, at some level, of having occurred in the first place.

Thus, I contend that the motion, while a necessary pretext to all action/events/occurances in spacetime is also simultaneously the means by which the recording of that action is stored. In other words that what we're looking at in the video of the OP is a type of cosmological recording device, with the motion as a first/last cause and the historical vortex as the wake left behind in the vacuum of space, the record of everything that happened. Again, it's the historical record not simply of the Earth as a separate system but also in regards to EVERYTHING that system contains as an interconnecgted and interdependant occurrance (happening) in spacetime.

More specifically I am referring to the process by which the earth and everything in it, including we ourselves, leaves a record in the Zero Point Field aka the Akashic Record/Field, which is also the "embodied" in the vacuum of spacetime itself (same diff).


Sounds as little far fetched, right?

But wait there's more! Check this out, from an article by Bernard Haisch (referred to in a post above) where a friend and colleague of his, Alfonso Rueda, derived Isaac Newton's fundamental equation of motion F=MA (force equals mass times acceleration) while working from mathematical calculations in relation to the Zero Point Field of the Quantum Vaccum!


My first inkling that the deceptively simple "Let there be light" might actually contain a profound cosmological truth came in early July 1992. I was trying to wrap things up in my office in Palo Alto so that I could spend the rest of the summer doing research on the X-ray emission of stars at the Max Planck Institute in Garching, Germany. I came in one morning just before my departure and found a rather peculiar message on my answering machine; it had been left at 3 a.m.by a usually sober-minded colleague, Alfonso Rueda, a professor at California State University in Long Beach. He was so excited by the results of a horrifically-long mathematical analysis he had been grinding through that he just had to tell me about it, knowing full well I was not there to share the thrill.

What he had succeeded in doing was to derive the equation: F=ma. Details would follow in Germany.

Most people will take this in stride with a "so what?" or "what does that mean?" After all what are F, m and a, and what is so noteworthy about a scientist deriving a simple equation? Isn't this what scientists do for a living? But a physicist will have an incredulous reaction because you are not supposed to be able to derive the equation F=ma. That equation was postulated by Newton in his Principia, the foundation stone of physics, in 1687. A postulate is a law that you assume to be true, and from which other things follow: such as much of physics, for example, from that particular postulate. You cannot derive postulates. How do you prove that one plus one equals two? The answer is, you don't. You assume that abstract numbers work that way, and then derive other properties of addition from that basic assumption.

But indeed, as I discovered when I began to write up a research paper based on what Rueda soon sent to Garching, he had indeed derived Newton's fundamental "equation of motion." And the concept underlying this analysis was the existence of a background sea of light known as the electromagnetic zero-point field of the quantum vacuum.

an excerpt from the abridged article by Haisch called Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field

So it turns out that the vacuum of black space is actually an ocean of radiant electromagnetic potential as the backdrop through which everything that has happened and will ever happen, happens.

Things that make ya go hmmm...



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan


..More specifically I am referring to the process by which the earth and everything in it, including we ourselves, leaves a record in the Zero Point Field aka the Akashic Record/Field, which is also the "embodied" in the vacuum of spacetime itself (same diff).

-------

And please, just wait a moment before jumping to any conclusions and think this through both in the context of the video in the OP and the following (below). And please ignore and set aside the reference to "God" or any effort to prove God because for the sake of this argument that need not come into the discussion.


"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249274834&sr=8-1

Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

an excerpt

(quote)If you think of white light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.(end quote)

Next, by Ervin Laszlo

Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything, 2004
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-1

And, his other seminal work
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-6

Ervin Laszlo is considered one of the foremost thinkers and scientists of our age, perhaps the greatest mind since Einstein. His principal focus of research involves the Zero Point Field. He is the author of around seventy five books (his works having been translated into at least seventeen languages), and he has contributed to over 400 papers. Widely considered the father of systems philosophy and general evolution theory, he has worked as an advisor to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2004 and 2005. A multidisciplinarian, Laszlo has straddled numerous fields, having worked at universities as a professor of philosophy, music, futures studies, systems science, peace studies, and evolutionary studies. He was a sucessful concert pianist until he was thirty eight.

In his view, the zero-point field (or the Akashic Field, as he calls it) is quite literally the "mind of God".

Naming Hal Puthoff, Roger Penrose, Fritz-Albert Popp, and a handful of others as "front line investigators", Laszlo quotes Puthoff who says of the new scientific paradigm:

(quote)[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity." (end quote)

an excert from Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything

(quote)Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."(end quote)

Laszlo's view of the history of the universe even as a series of universes that rise and fall, is one whereby each iteration is "in-formed" by the existence of the previous one. In Laszlo's mind, the universe is becoming more and more in-formed, and within the physical universe, matter (which is the "crystallization of intersecting pressure waves or an interference pattern moving through the zero-point field") is becoming increasing in-formed and evolving toward ever higher forms of consciousness and realization, which is we ourselves as we stand at the apex of a whole mountain of evolutionary cosmological history.. or even next to the Godhead (see Haisch above) as it were.

-----------

Best Regards,

NAM


edit on 5-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join