The Solar System in Motion

Chances are, you've already come across the viral video purporting to show the vortex motion of planets around the Sun as it moves through our galaxy. In case you haven't, here it is:


www.youtube.com...

Problem is, as cool as that video looks, it's inaccurate in its presentation (the Sun doesn't drag the planets behind itself), terminology (it's not a vortex but a helix), and in how the author implies that this is a revolutionary representation and that our heliocentric model is wrong. The video has been analysed and debunked by Phil Plait in his blog: www.slate.com...

All that is fairly old news now, but for a while I've been wondering if someone could create an accurate animation that would stick to as many facts as possible. And this morning I found it:


www.youtube.com...

The animation in this video takes into an account the 60-degree tilt of the Solar System with respect to the galactic plane, as well as the very high velocity of the Sun's motion through the galaxy.

The result looks like this:



You can clearly see the tilt of the Solar System, and the fact that the planets' "trails" look more like tails or streamers.

As the video author writes in his blog, "This changed the look of the simulation rather markedly. Although the helix shapes are still there, they are much more elongated. In fact, the overall impression now is that the track of the movement of the planets are long streamers or tails stretching out around the Sun. This was an unexpected result and added an element of discovery into what had already been a fascinating and absorbing project.

[...]

I had learned a great deal from this project. As with the movement from a geocentric to a heliocentric model of the Solar System, the incomprehensible expanse of space and our world’s minute dimensions in comparison are the impressions one is left with. Our precious, beautiful planet is a tiny, living pin point in the enormity of the dark and we are so lucky enough to briefly exist on this shore of the cosmos."

a reply to: wildespace

"This changed the look of the simulation rather markedly. Although the helix shapes are still there, they are much more elongated.

Ummm... he disapproves of the notion that the sun drags the planets along, then shows that in his animation. Of course both are time lapsed versions of reality.

I wonder what a time lapse of the galaxy would look like? They still present that old school too. 2 minutes into here,.,

Beautiful. So next time i make a time travel device, i also need to make sure to i travel thru space not just time or i will find myself 8billion miles away from where im supposed to be...

originally posted by: rollerstick
Beautiful. So next time i make a time travel device, i also need to make sure to i travel thru space not just time or i will find myself 8billion miles away from where im supposed to be...

Gonna need retro rockets for that device. Considering the earth also travels in an elliptical orbit, affected by the tidal pull of the moon and other planets as well...

The average distance from the sun to the Earth is 150 million kilometers or 93.2 million miles. Multiplying by 2 Pi gives 585.6 million miles for the circumference. Dividing this by 365.25 days/year gives 1.603 million miles per day.

Trying to time travel to the past even a day ahead, and fixing that point in space... NASA can't do that.

physlink

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: wildespace

"This changed the look of the simulation rather markedly. Although the helix shapes are still there, they are much more elongated.

Ummm... he disapproves of the notion that the sun drags the planets along, then shows that in his animation.

No, his animation shows planets getting ahead of the Sun, due to the 60-degree tilt.

All the animations seem overly dramatic.

It's not like the planets or the sun give off streamers like if there is drag in space, or any significant material constantly being blown off like a comet.

Also the sun doesn't have to pull the planets on the axis of its galactic orbit because they are already moving together in the same general direction.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: wildespace

"This changed the look of the simulation rather markedly. Although the helix shapes are still there, they are much more elongated.

Ummm... he disapproves of the notion that the sun drags the planets along, then shows that in his animation.

No, his animation shows planets getting ahead of the Sun, due to the 60-degree tilt.

Which disproved DJSadhu's version in which the planets trail slightly behind the sun at all times in what he called a "vortex." Sadhu claimed the standard solar system models are actually invalid and do not correctly show the spatial relationships of the objects even just within the solar system itself. Of course that was always absurd for the very reason you just stated as well as the fact that standard models of planetary motion going all the way back to Simon Newcomb are still extremely accurate for predicting the positions of the planets.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: wildespace

"This changed the look of the simulation rather markedly. Although the helix shapes are still there, they are much more elongated.

Ummm... he disapproves of the notion that the sun drags the planets along, then shows that in his animation.

No, his animation shows planets getting ahead of the Sun, due to the 60-degree tilt.

I get the tilt relative to the galactic plane. His first video was the first time many had seen other than the standard classroom model of the solar system. Because well, the standard classroom model is only a snapshot and presented to the student as a flat level model. A snapshot of time can't see the vortices. I had a mobile when I was kid hanging in my room. When I spun it I could see the vortices thingy.


Also models of Saturn and other ringed planets are canted too.


So what are the galaxies orbiting around?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: wildespace

"This changed the look of the simulation rather markedly. Although the helix shapes are still there, they are much more elongated.

I wonder what a time lapse of the galaxy would look like? They still present that old school too. 2 minutes into here,.,

Galaxy's spiral arms are standing density waves. As the galaxy rotates, the stars go in and out of the arms. Check out the animations in this Wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.org...

upload.wikimedia.org...

a reply to: SpaceXIsReal

Sadhu claimed the standard solar system models are actually invalid

He probably saw the image of a "standard Model" in the Encyclopedia Britanica. And he was right,

And you are too, technically.

Of course you didn't come up with a cool video demonstrating it, either.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: wildespace

"This changed the look of the simulation rather markedly. Although the helix shapes are still there, they are much more elongated.

I wonder what a time lapse of the galaxy would look like? They still present that old school too. 2 minutes into here,.,

Galaxy's spiral arms are standing density waves. As the galaxy rotates, the stars go in and out of the arms. Check out the animations in this Wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.org...

upload.wikimedia.org...

I did. The computer animations are 2D... Tilt!

I was wondering what a 3d animation, with the stars being 'pulled along' by the galactic center, would look like.

originally posted by: nOraKat
All the animations seem overly dramatic.

It's not like the planets or the sun give off streamers like if there is drag in space, or any significant material constantly being blown off like a comet.

The streamers are only there to show the path planets trace in intergalactic space.

Also the sun doesn't have to pull the planets on the axis of its galactic orbit because they are already moving together in the same general direction.

That's exactly what the new animation shows; the planets move together with the Sun and even get ahead of it in their orbits.

In my opinion, that animation is mind-blowing, not least due to being very accurate to what is really happening.

a reply to: intrptr

But they can get a spacecraft like Cassini to Saturn via Venus, Earth, and Jupiter in multiple gravity assist maneuvers...

I think you're selling them way too short.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: intrptr

But they can get a spacecraft like Cassini to Saturn via Venus, Earth, and Jupiter in multiple gravity assist maneuvers...

I think you're selling them way too short.

They need periodic rocket burns to adjust for course. None of which come close to the precision required to determine exactly where the surface of the earth will be in a year.

Too make sure you don't materialize knee deep in the ground, that is.

Something the special effects in star treks transporter never addressed, for instance.

Cool fuzzy sound and sparkly lights convinced us of the reality.

a reply to: wildespace

The streamers are only there to show the path planets trace in intergalactic space.

You mean the earth doesn't leave any kind of trail in its wake? We don't out gas anything to space?

Wouldn't it just be easier to show how the Milky Way galaxy moves through space, since our solar system is within it??

a reply to: intrptr

I reckon there would be continual adjustments made during a Star Trek transport, but who knows it's sci fi...and nothing to do with NASA.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: intrptr

I reckon there would be continual adjustments made during a Star Trek transport, but who knows it's sci fi...and nothing to do with NASA.

Transporters remove the need to show the 'away team' descending form orbit in a shuttle every episode. That would bore audiences to death.

So somebody suggested hey, how about a beaming thingy?

ETA: The weirdest feature I saw transporting was in the film, Wrath of Kahn when you could over hear them talking as they were beaming...

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: SpaceXIsReal

Sadhu claimed the standard solar system models are actually invalid

He probably saw the image of a "standard Model" in the Encyclopedia Britanica. And he was right,

And you are too, technically.

Of course you didn't come up with a cool video demonstrating it, either.

No, his model had the planets perpetually trailing behind the sun, as if the plane of the ecliptic did not intersect the sun at all. That is demonstrably false. I may not have produced a video showing how the solar system moves through the galaxy, but I have produced accurate spreadsheets for predicting the positions of the sun, moon and planets before, and they are quite accurate.

a reply to: wildespace

Pretty cool, so rather than "towing" all the planets behind it with its massive gravity as the tow cable, the sun has all the planets on some sort of crazy lasso, or bollos/slingshot(the old styled David vs Goliath slingshots), flinging the planets "up" and forwards ahead of it at times, and back behind and "below" the sun and galactic plane around again, at a crazy angle rather than exactly perpendicular (or parallel)to the galactic plane, and therefore, the sun's projected path way. Which of course we all knew, but for some reason it hadnt occured to me while watching the "vortex" *lol* video. Then again, neither did it occur to me that vortex was not the right word lol

Thank you for sharing bud 👍