Note : Copyright of all visuals belong to their respective owners and have been sourced from the internet. This story has been ported from another platform which I used earlier.
Date : Sept, 2014
(last updated in 2018)
What do I mean by 2 dimensions ?
The model of the solar system that is taught in academics, depicts a stationary sun or a motionless sun. Hence, 2 dimensional orbits (circular / elliptical) would be correct. Hypothetically, in such a case, if the planets left a smoke trail behind them like stunt aeroplanes, then the orbital path would create a circle or ellipse in space. According to this model, the Earth returns to the same point in space after 365 days. Good so far.
But the sun moves thru space, in fact, it revolves around the center of our galaxy. It is not simply floating in space.
Which means that the planets move thru space in 3 dimensional helical orbits around a moving sun. The hypothetical smoke trail would now look like a helix / spring, instead of a flat circle.
Therefore, the model of the solar system usually taught in academics, is wrong. And, the Earth does not return to the same point in space after 365 days.
Therefore, the model of the solar system usually taught in academics, is wrong. And, the Earth does not return to the same point in space after 365 days.
The correct version would look somewhat like this video below. Surprisingly, it was made by a music producer / artist from Netherlands (DJ Sadhu) and not the scientific or academic community.
DJ Sadhu caused lot of friction in the scientific community with his version 1 video & he later released the above version 2 video, after incorporating some corrections pointed out to him by experts. Read the full history of this “science-friction” here - http://www.djsadhu.com/research/solar-system-2-0-science-friction/
(Version 1 video was published in Aug, 2012 & version 2 in March, 2015)
Helical Orbits
People were thinking of the concept of a moving solar system as early as 1928, way before any of you were even born ! A working model was even shown in 1958. Were you EVER exposed to this idea during formal education ? Why not ? The moment you accept that the sun moves thru space, the concept of a circular/elliptical 2d orbit becomes incorrect ! Its not a simplified depiction - its simply wrong !
http://www.orgonelab.org/MillerReich.htm
This is not like a globe vs flat map issue. Every student is taught in formal academics, with the help of a globe, that the earth is almost spherical and that the map is an unwrapped simplified version of that. They are shown photographs and illustrations of spherical earth in formal academics and outside curriculum too.
But the concept of helical orbits is NEVER even mentioned in formal academic curriculum (please share proof if you disagree & i am talking about school & regular college, not astronomy specific degree). As a result, after around 15 years of formal education, students still remain ignorant of helical orbits in a moving solar system.
Helical orbits was never even mentioned in any of the science books I grew up with, in school and college, including today’s books, academic curriculum, space encyclopedia books, science educational websites / videos. I have no clue why. My son's 8th grade science textbook has a full chapter on solar system but nowhere does it even mention that the sun moves thru space or that it goes around the Milky Way galaxy ! Then how are kids even going to think of helical orbits ?
Maybe the kids can only understand complicated stuff like galaxies, universe, Big Bang theory etc but not simple stuff like a moving sun :-)
I can understand space agencies using that 2d visual of the solar system, for computational and tracking purposes but when that very same depiction is taught to the masses without explaining sun's motion and helical orbits of the planets, it leads to a misleading concept and the wrong model gets planted in their minds. Thus, the concept of helical orbits would never occur to them.
I am not saying that we should use helical model all the time and discard the static solar system model. I am advocating the usage like globe vs map. Start the foundation in school with a model of a moving solar system, with the planets tracing 3D helical orbits around a moving sun and then, move on to a static model, with 2D circular/elliptical orbits. Explain both. Right now, neither the sun's motion nor helical orbits are mentioned and it is absolutely ridiculous to omit this fundamental fact of solar system !
It Is Just A Frame Of Reference !
If your argument is that it is just a frame of reference, then why not teach that everything revolves around earth ? That is a much stronger frame of reference ! Going by this silly logic, we should be teaching that Earth is flat, and not spherical ! In all these cases, science didn't just say it is all frames of reference - they CLEARLY said that the ancient ideas about the sun & earth were WRONG !
(you have to scroll down a bit to see the visuals)
This is not like a globe vs flat map issue. Every student is taught in formal academics, with the help of a globe, that the earth is almost spherical and that the map is an unwrapped simplified version of that. They are shown photographs and illustrations of spherical earth in formal academics and outside curriculum too.
But the concept of helical orbits is NEVER even mentioned in formal academic curriculum (please share proof if you disagree & i am talking about school & regular college, not astronomy specific degree). As a result, after around 15 years of formal education, students still remain ignorant of helical orbits in a moving solar system.
Helical orbits was never even mentioned in any of the science books I grew up with, in school and college, including today’s books, academic curriculum, space encyclopedia books, science educational websites / videos. I have no clue why. My son's 8th grade science textbook has a full chapter on solar system but nowhere does it even mention that the sun moves thru space or that it goes around the Milky Way galaxy ! Then how are kids even going to think of helical orbits ?
Maybe the kids can only understand complicated stuff like galaxies, universe, Big Bang theory etc but not simple stuff like a moving sun :-)
I can understand space agencies using that 2d visual of the solar system, for computational and tracking purposes but when that very same depiction is taught to the masses without explaining sun's motion and helical orbits of the planets, it leads to a misleading concept and the wrong model gets planted in their minds. Thus, the concept of helical orbits would never occur to them.
I am not saying that we should use helical model all the time and discard the static solar system model. I am advocating the usage like globe vs map. Start the foundation in school with a model of a moving solar system, with the planets tracing 3D helical orbits around a moving sun and then, move on to a static model, with 2D circular/elliptical orbits. Explain both. Right now, neither the sun's motion nor helical orbits are mentioned and it is absolutely ridiculous to omit this fundamental fact of solar system !
If your argument is that it is just a frame of reference, then why not teach that everything revolves around earth ? That is a much stronger frame of reference ! Going by this silly logic, we should be teaching that Earth is flat, and not spherical ! In all these cases, science didn't just say it is all frames of reference - they CLEARLY said that the ancient ideas about the sun & earth were WRONG !
Even a small kid, just like any adult, would say this ancient Geocentric model is wrong.
Why not illustrate what is really happening, instead of taking creative liberty ? Frame of reference is a ridiculous argument. One can then look at a spring & foolishly argue that it is a circle bcos it just depends on the angle of view or frame of reference, right ? By this strange logic, why not teach that DNA is a circle too ?
One can also then foolishly extend the same logic to a pyramid and say it is a triangle or a square, depending on how you look at it. How can anybody possibly ignore the 3rd dimension ?
Try passing the following simple exam, in any country, with the "frames of reference" logic :-)
An astrophysicist confirms the helical solar system model :
(March, 2015)
Astrophysicist Rhys Taylor says :
"The most basic notion that the planets trace helical paths through space is perfectly correct."
The above article is a must-read for many of those people who foolishly believed the critical & misleading headlines of the science magazines, Slate and Universe Today. Those magazines too basically agreed on helical orbits but disagreed on minor issues. But their headlines & opening text easily misled many into believing that helical orbits are wrong.
Dec, 2013
Read the full article
"Planets trace a helical path in space because our Solar System is orbiting the center of the galaxy." |
March, 2013
Read the full article
Lot of egoistic ranting & nitpicking but basically agrees to the helical orbit of planets.See Phil Plait peddling the wrong model |
What is even more amazing is that while both these sites come across as know-it-all space experts, neither of them could provide a visual of the correct model of the solar system. Neither could the global scientific community, after all these decades ! Just lot of words, maybe because they are cheap :-) I truly believe when one is debunking something like this, they should also then put out the correct visual.
When I look at various books on space and astronomy in bookstores and even school textbooks, the motion of our sun though space is very strangely omitted, while the entire biodata of sun is given in great detail, right up to its composition and time of birth. Same holds true for most online content about the solar system.
The only reason I can think of, for this omission, is that the science community will then have to ADMIT that their model was wrong and so many books and textbooks will need to be updated. So, it is very convenient to NOT mention that the sun moves through space. In the rare instances, when the sun's motion is indeed mentioned, the solar system model would still be depicted wrongly - with fairy tale circles & ellipses, as seen below :
Credit : NASA
(illustration of a moving solar system but ridiculously wrong orbits & wrong sun color too. It should be white sun + helical orbits)
Double Mistake by NASA (twitter)
Why is the concept of helical orbits/trajectory almost never mentioned while teaching about solar system ?
Why doesn't the scientific & academic community have the right visuals for it ?
Why does a music DJ have to lead the way ?
Have
a look at the video below. Do you see 2 eagles revolving around each
other or 2 eagles spiraling down ? Intelligent observations always take
into account the motion along Z axis too. If you change the frame of
reference, the birds are indeed revolving around each other in a
circular orbit. But nobody reports it like that, do they ? Bcos it would
be ridiculous !
***
The sun's true color in space is WHITE !
Almost everyone wrongly depicts the sun color in space as yellow, orange or red (including experts), when its true color is white. It looks yellow only when looked at, through the Earth's atmosphere but is white when observed from space. So, all solar system models should be showing a white star. Even astrophysicist Rhys Taylor depicts a kiddish yellow sun. Mental conditioning truly does defeat academic qualifications & experience.
"But the sun is indeed classified as a yellow dwarf star !"
True and you probably read only the headline and failed to read the actual content of such articles. Read this Wikipedia info on yellow dwarf stars :
"The term yellow dwarf is a misnomer, because G-type stars actually range in color from white, for more luminous types like the Sun, to only very slightly yellow for the less massive and luminous G-type main-sequence stars. The Sun is in fact white, but appears yellow through Earth's atmosphere due to atmospheric Rayleigh scattering."
Similarly, the term brown dwarf is also misleading. Despite their name, brown dwarf stars are of different colors. Many brown dwarfs would likely appear magenta to the human eye or possibly orange/red. In fact, brown isn’t even a color for astronomers ! White dwarf star also does not automatically mean that their color is white. They have a range of colors. I feel the star classification system could have used a more intelligent naming system.
If the sun color in solar system visuals is depicted as yellow just bcos it looks yellow from earth, then why not depict space as blue, instead of black ? On earth, do you see the sun against blue or black ? Why is space shown as black and only the sun kept yellow ? Why this selective story telling from the earth's perspective ? And why not then extend this silly argument & teach that the sun goes around a flat earth ?
Many other dumb justifications for wrong sun color are demolished in article below :
Feel free to comment, agree / disagree
& even post links relevant to the topic.
***
No comments:
Post a Comment