I agree, you have to see it in full screen mode. I've never looked at it that way, although I've known for a long time that our galaxy was rotating around something bigger which was also rotating around something bigger, and on and on. I've never heard of the whole vortex theory, but it makes a lot of sense. It's far beyond humbling to contemplate.

Here's an explanation from an astronomer: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html

another pretty video in the garbage

However, there’s a problem with it: It’s wrong. And not just superficially; it’s deeply wrong, based on a very wrong premise. While there are some useful visualizations in it, I caution people to take it with a galaxy-sized grain of salt.

The movie is showing a helix, not a vortex. I should have known that was wrong,although I'd never thought about the difference between those two things. The funny thing is, he shows a picture of the DNA double helix when he's giving examples of vortexes.

The sun does bob up and down during its orbit, but it doesn't do it nearly as much as shown in the video. I didn't know it did that at all.

The sun takes about 26,000 years to orbit the galactic center, not 256,000 years, as it says in the video.

The helical motion can't be true because sometimes the planets are ahead of the sun as it orbits the galactic center.

The galaxy is shaped like a platter, which I've always found to be odd, but science nevertheless shows that to be the case. I would be much more satisfied if it was shaped like a sphere or anything 3 dimensional, but there we have it.

The rest of the article is something for me to think about while I'm working out this morning, which I'm about to do. It's a shame the video isn't accurate, because it sure is pretty.

the solar system completes an orbit around the galaxy every 225 to 250 million years

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/StacyLeong.shtml




/image_preview

As to helix or vortex, well that depends upon whether the earth's orbit is decaying or not. If the sun's gravity were the only factor then the earth's orbit probably would decay from what little debris and atmosphere is in space, but you also have to factor in the "push" by the sun's light is great enough to counteract all of that. If indeed the earth's orbit is decaying then the earth and most likely the other planets are in a very slow vortex toward the sun. Nobody disputes that the sun is circling the galaxy. So who knows?

If as you say you didn't even know the sun does bob up and down, why do you take one persons theory over another? Personally I doubt if either know with a very large degree of certainty what the frequency is.

Neither number you show is correct for a galactic year, the video is correct at 226 million years.

How do you know the planets are "ahead" of the sun? Because you can't see the other planets? Maybe they are just on the other "side" of the sun?

I don't think either theory says the galaxy is any shape other than a disk.

I don't know which theory is right but I do know that the one thing to remember is scientific theory is fluid. The vortex theory makes sense in a lot of ways. Plait, who himself seems to like the limelight, has invested his whole professional life in one theory, it is no wonder he wouldn't embrace a different one. I will be dead before the vortex theory is fully proved "right" or "wrong".

My point is do not put all of your faith in the "old" theories. People once "knew" that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Then they "knew" the sun was the center of the universe, etc, etc. If anyone says that a theory is " written in stone" remember that a theory is only as good as the information used to create it. Theories, some well known at the time, are found to be incorrect all the time with improvements in testing and measuring among other improvements. Most theories know to be "true" today were thought of as hokum in the past.

This has nothing to do with "faith in old theories". New theories (like Einstein's versus Newton's) explain new facts and incorporate old well-established facts. DJ Sadhu's and Bhat's don't present any newly discovered facts to explain and they fail to incorporate old well-established facts.

If you read the article by the astronomer, it becomes immediately obvious that DJ Sadhu's and Bhat's ideas are internally self-contradictory and fail on facts.

One simple one: if Bhat and DJ Sadhu were right, then planets would never be observed going behind the sun because by their theory the sun leads the solar system and the planets trail. However, planetary eclipse by the sun is something you can observe yourself; carefully to avoid sun blindness and carefully by plotting the planetary motion as it travels behind the sun so that you can predict when it will be reappearing.

it a theory, although unproven. That's how it sometimes starts, you consider a, I won't even call it a hypotheses, this is more of a "what if" and sometimes present it so others can pursue it also. Truly this is a very weak theory but they all start somewhere and should not be so easily dismissed. As with all new theories you present the what if and then look for the facts to support it. Facts don't always come before the theory, you usually need a reason to look for them.

I know and don't dispute that the planets go around the sun. But your use of the word "behind" has little meaning to me in this context. So please explain where "behind" is in three dimensions. And nobody disputes that everything is moving in multiple directions at the same time, just how it is moving.

I think the video does a poor job of showing the planets "following" the sun, I doubt Sadhu is dumb enough to not realize the planets would have to at least follow the sun from the side.

If nothing else I think the theory is interesting to think about.

"Behind" means that the planets trail the sun on the line of travel of the sun through the galaxy, according to the "theory" of DJ Sadhu and Bhat.

It would mean that if you place a plane perpendicular to the line of travel at the sun, all the planets would be behind. The sun would penetrate the plane first and then the planets.

The fact is that the sun does not lead the planets on the line of travel through the galaxy. If it did, then there would never be a transit by an planet across the face of the sun and planets would not disappear for a time behind the sun as they orbit. The facts are that planets do transit across the face of the sun and do disappear for a time behind the sun as they orbit.

Facts always come before a theory. ALWAYS. If a theory explains the facts, then it is accepted. If two or more theories explain the facts, the simplest one is accepted. You can quibble that sometimes a new theory is proposed with no new facts, simply because it is simpler and therefore more desirable. That is a quibble that does not contradict the basic principle: Theories explain facts; we don't select facts to fit theories.

When a new fact appears that violates the theory, then a new theory is needed.

That happened when it was discovered in the late 1800s that Mercury's orbit was precessing by an amount that Newton's theory could not explain. So a new theory was needed, and Einstein provided it with Special Relativity in 1905. Newton's theory could not predict the precession, but Einstein's theory did, and it did it to a greater degree of accuracy than the precession had been measured. When they were able to make more accurate measurements in 1919, Einstein's theory was spot on. Over the years as ever more precise measurements of the precession have been made, Einstein's theory is again and again shown to be very accurate.

The so-called "theory" of DJ Sadhu and Bhat do not explain any facts that other theories explain. It does not propose a simpler theory that covers all the facts: It is more complicated and it doesn't cover even the most obvious facts. It makes predictions that are wrong and that any amateur astronomer can easily prove wrong with simple equipment, with needing the resources of a professional astronomer. The "theory" violates facts observed by Sumerians, Egyptians, Galileo, and innumerable observers since.

The theory is only "interesting" as psychological case study of just how wrong people can go who should know better.

A little bit of study, such as reading the article that debunks the "theory" and learning about the fundamental principles of scientific inquiry, would make all of this very plain and comprehensible.

I asked you to explain what you meant by "behind" in your previous post which said:

the bold is mine and thanks for the warning but I'm not nearly as stupid as you seem to think.

You replied with this: . I'm sorry but I can't understand how that answers my question about your use of the word behind.

You say:
Then you say:
I went to the dictionary for this, yup, I do know what a fact is: from Dictionary.com Now something is either a fact or not, true or not.

As for a theory: Also from Dictionary.com, bold is mine.

I was taught, admittedly quite a while ago, that a theory can explain a fact or create one. Is a fact a fact if nobody knows it? So according to my teaching, we are both right, except for your insistence that a "fact" always comes first. Think about the "fact" that the stars are moving. Was that a fact before it was a theory? Doubtful in my mind, it must have taken a lot of theorizing to decide that "fact". There are an awful lot of variables to sort through. Are the stars moving? Is the earth moving? Etc, etc, etc. Get the point? You propose a theory and look for supporting facts, don't find any then your theory is wrong and you start over. I thought this process was well known. I guess they don't teach it anymore.

As for: I don't really think they are trying to support any of the "facts" explained by the other theories, I think they are trying to dispute them.

Again after all of that is said I doubt their theory is true, but it is interesting and fun to explore.
Remember the most valuable tool for a scientist is an open mind.

Theories do not make new facts. They do not create facts. Theories are not facts.

Many people use the word "theory" when the word "hypothesis" should be used.
Dictionaries frequently give definitions that are those use sloppily by the majority of people. However, this thread is not about "theory" as a term in every day conversation but about the scientific term "theory".

Newton's Theory of Gravitation is a well-established theory (as a sub-case of Einstein's relativistic Theory of Gravitation), but it is not a fact. It explains the facts.

On the other hand, do not pretend Newton's theory is conjectural enough to subject it to experimentation by walking out of a tenth-story window.

They don't teach that anymore because that is dead wrong.

Scientists do not look for facts to support theories. Scientists look for facts that disprove theories.

Pseudo-scientists like creationists and "intelligent design" followers look for facts that support their theories and ignore facts that disprove them.

"A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying in other words that he is wiser today than he was yesterday." -- Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

But don't you recognize the scientific method when you see it written? I'm pretty sure it hasn't changed.

It goes like this:
Question (this would usually be why does x happen)
Research
Hypothesis (I called it proposing a theory so shoot me)
Test (this would be what I called look for supporting facts)
Analyze (goes with Test)
If true report results (this would be the theory)
If false construct another hypothesis (don't find any supporting facts you start over)

If you don't believe me look it up.

Ok let's take Newton's theory of gravity as an example, you say it started with a fact, in this case an apple falling out of a tree. That is the fact you start with. I say it started when someone, Newton in this case although I doubt he was the first to ask the question, asked why did the apple fall down, and can it or does it sometimes fall up, or sideways? Does it fall up on the other side of the world? A fact is just that, and often by your own admission not true, a theory starts with a question and looks for the fact or truth. It is only a fact that the apple falls to the ground when it is proven to be a fact. And that has always been dead right.

He always meant 'helix', but he was sloppy. He didn't meaning 'a decaying orbit'. However, we do know that what he shows in the video is wrong. For example, we know that every planet spends half of its time 'ahead' of the sun, because that's how an orbit works. And we can see where they are, and we know the planes the galactic disk and the solar system orbits are in.

The point is that there's no 'theory' here; it's just a filmmaker who doesn't fully understand celestial mechanics.

Whether we are in a decaying orbit is up for debate, and yes it really is debatable.

I don't dispute that the planets circle the sun, but what do you mean by "ahead". What is "ahead" relative to?

There is a theory here, disagree if you like, but it is a theory. And please for the sake of science, don't fall into the "it can't be possible" trap. Too many times it has been possible.

Remember there were and still are people that believed, to the point of fearing for their lives, that the earth is flat.

Because the planets orbit round the sun, and not a point lagging it in the sun's path round the galaxy, and the plane they orbit in it not perpendicular to the galactic plane, then they will be ahead of the sun part of the time.

"Remember there were and still are people that believed, to the point of fearing for their lives, that the earth is flat" - maybe, but observation proves them wrong (my great-great grandfather actually published a book about it, and he really believed it. But he was completely wrong).

'Vortex' is a term for fluid flow, anyway. Perhaps you're thinking of 'spiral'.

My problem is that I have to believe someone because I can't verify these theories myself. Perhaps you are in a position that you don't have to take someone else's word for all of this, I don't know if you can and frankly don't care.

I do believe the planets orbit the sun, how they do so, up, down, forward, backwards, left, right, I don't know. I have no way of confirming how that rotation is in relation to the galaxy's disk, nor can I even prove that the galaxy is disk shaped. I have to take someones word for all of this. I find all of this interesting and lend an ear to whoever can show me something interesting.

I hope you don't fall into the same trap as your great-great grandfather. Most scientists will not completely discount any theories. Theories have too often been "proven" wrong. An open mind is a scientists most valuable tool.

As for the term vortex? Well it usually refers to fluids, water or air mainly. And you are right spiral may have been a better term. But the way it is depicted in the videos, I think the author is justified in using it, mainly because of the following definition.

Spiral just doesn't seem to imply enough dimensions to the motion depicted in the videos, vortex, at least to me, fits better. Vortex also implies drawing in, spiral does not. But it is symantics and matters very little to the subject.

Precession is about the change in direction of the earth's rotational axis (which is what has a 26,000 year period, a figure the video gives, but for a non-existent spiralling of the sun in its path around the galaxy - as if there's a large concentrated mass the sun is orbiting, but which itself orbits the centre of the galaxy); or the change in the direction of perihelion/aphelion - again, for the Earth.

'Spiral' can mean a path going closer to a centre, as well as away from it.

My GGG-father relied mainly on the bible for his 'proofs'; occasionally a misunderstanding, and sometimes pure fantasy; such as a 'fact' that it's more than twice as far to go round the Earth at 50 degrees south as at 50 degrees north - he though the earth was a circle, with the north pole at the centre. No-one had reached the south pole when he wrote it, but presumably he would have accused them of lying if he had heard the claim; as he had to believe navigators had been doing for several centuries. And that's rather like this case - there are many astronomers who have been checking the movement of the sun in the galaxy for decades, and it's really not the kind of thing they could all be getting wrong without reputable astronomers having figures to disprove them.

It just doesn't seem to me that they can be as accurate as the claim. We are talking about comparing movement of our sun using stars that are at closest billions of miles away. These objects we are using for comparison are according to the same astronomers not stationary. How do you calculate the speed of an object billions of miles away when comparing it's speed to other objects billions of miles away whose speed you don't know either? When calculating speed you first have to know distances, how do you calculate the distances accurately? When talking about figures in the multiple billions, what margin of error do you feel is acceptable? I really don't think we are talking about six sigma here. Just too much room for error for me to put any faith in any of these theories. It's not like astronomers historically have a good track record.

But don't get me wrong, I think theories, especially physics, can be a lot of fun. One of my favorites is ancestor simulation theory. Yes I do look up theories for fun when I can't really think of anything else to do on the internets. I'm surprised not to have seen this one before.

You prove it again and again in your posts in this thread.

If you understood astronomy and science and modern measurement and inference, you would have no trouble understanding how "they can be as accurate as they claim".

Astronomers historically do have an excellent track record. They have continually refined their observations over centuries and recorded a vast collection of facts that are very internally consistent and accord very well with sophisticated theories such as Relativity.

But it is worse than that.

You could make measurements with a $100 telescope that would very quickly disprove the bogus so-called "theory" of the original post.

The best scientists, the ones who do keep very open minds, eagerly completely discount many theories that are obviously worthless because they are disproven by well-established facts that are not in dispute. The theory in the OP video is such a "theory": worthless and rightly completely discounted for the reason that anyone with some care and simple equipment can establish the reality of facts that immediately disprove the "theory". Presumably you would be one of those people if you could carefully record observations of planets made with very modest equipment like a $100 telescope.

Actually, astronomers in the centuries and millenia BCE have been making such observations without any telescopes and lenses. The Anasazi of the SouthWest USA made observations that detected the 18 1/2 year lunar cycle that are much more sophisticated than those needed to disprove the junk that DJ Sadhu and Bhat are pushing.

To claim a decaying orbit is equivalent to a vortex or implies a vortex or is evidence of a vortex is as ludicrous as claiming that a circular orbit implies a tether to center of the orbit.

Orbits and vortices work from entirely different physical principles.

Orbits work from gravitation.

Vortices work from fluid mediums.

Just because a small or large number of people believe that world is flat, in the face of massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, starting with the observations by Erastothenes (276-195 BCE), doesn't make the "flat earth theory" an actual theory or a respectable theory. At best it was a hypothesis without evidence either way until people like Erastothenes observed facts that immediately eliminated the hypothesis. There weren't any facts the other way because nobody had observed anybody falling over the edge of a flat earth.

Just because a previous hypothesis or theory has been assigned to the scrap heap of history doesn't mean that we should gullibly spend a lot of time on other theories that are immediately disproven by well-known facts that are easily verifiable.

Sun and planets evolved from the same moving heap of matter. So why should the center of the heap become faster and start leading the rest?

So much so that during a total eclipse, you can see some of the stars that are actually behind the Sun. The Sun literally sits in a"bowl" of gravity and the light from those stars bends around the "bowl" to reach us. The universe is place we are just beginning to understand.

All matter bends space-time, and stars, being big, bend it a lot. It's pretty basic stuff in the standard model; it's not 'brane theory.

is somewhere around Neptune's orbit and to aim it at the Sun. Let the gravitational lensing be the focusing ring, just black out the big bright center.

is very well understood, and has been for some time. There are things that are poorly understood, still, but that's not one of them. For example, we still don't understand gravity itself very well, but we understand its effects.

of unfulfilled dreams circling the drain of cynicism ...or something

Like many such things, this supposition is based on something other than demonstrable science. Rather, it is based on wishful thinking and false premises. The mechanics of the universe, on the level being distorted by these videos, is damn well understood. Other things about the universe are still not completely understood, but orbital mechanics are not one of those things.

Want something to look at that is even prettier and even more wrong? Google Electric Universe. That'll woo you.