Well, it’s not exactly corkscrewing, but if I had used the word “torus,” most people would have had no idea what I meant.
This video will blow your mind.
“The earth is not revolving around the sun,” this video shows. “That’s the equivalent of thinking that the earth is flat.”
“Our orbit is eliptical … vortecular … with a torque dynamic.”
Thanks to Stephanie Relfe for this video.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
21 Responses to Our planet is corkscrewing through space – Video
SUNSPOTS
11 May - 4 sunspots
Credit: landscheidt.infoGood news! A publisher in Italy has now translated Not by Fire but by Ice into Italian.
La Prossima Era Glaciale
Available hereClick for full size
Ice Age Maps
Are You Prepared?
I recommend this DVD
Warmer during most of
the past 10,000 years
- 530,077
Unique
VisitorsPowered By
I was really enjoying this until he went all hocus pocus with the space-time nonsense. Invoking a gravity centric spin to this is completely unnecessary. Plasma cosmology explains this quite well and toroidal formations are completely natural and predicted by it.
hi again DW,
I can see you’re putting an honest and
diligent effort into your cosmological
enquiries.
I will continue with my assumption you are objecting to certain theories for
scriptural reasons, and respectfully
present you with
a set of assertions regarding “space-time”
you may investigate if you wish:
1.Christianity has had a great affinity
for the Greek “logos”, and in particular
geometry as a method of gaining insight
into the mind of the Creator from the 1st
century.
2.Decartes monumental synthesis of his
Cartesian coordinate system — the “space”
part of “space-time” is a crowning
achievement of Christianity
3.Isaac Newton saw his adding “time” to
“space-time” was viewed by him and the
world as a form of worship, and was
percieved as a towering achievement of
Christianity
4.Newton openly speculated on whether
“space-time” had any real existance, or
was merely a useful way of analyzing things
5.Einstein the same, in fact leaning toward
your view that “space-time” had no real
existance, except maybe in infinitesmlly
small contiguous differential elements
of volume.
6.if Newton and Einstein doubt whether
“space-time” exists, it’s A-OK for you
to doubt it also
7.even if it doesn’t exist, it’s still
awefully useful.
8.if you’re arguaing against space-time
because you think it contradicts Christianity, you’re shooting yourself
in the foot, because this concept is
one of Christianity’s towering accomplishments.
9.my remarks are my poor rendition of
those of Dr Stanley Jaki PhD Divinity,
PhD Physics — if you are interested
in this topic, suggest you read any or all
of his books that appeal to you.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration,
-LP
dw,I disagree. You should open your mind to new ideas. I see you as the same ilk that called those that said the earth revolved around the sun as “hocus pocus”.
I don’t see where DW has a closed mind to new ideas. Seems he just didn’t appreciate nor accept some of the aspects of Einstein’s laws. Not sure I blame him. I rather thought that was the only thing that he didn’t like.
I’m the one with the closed mine as it just looks like someone trying to put a new math spin on the same old thing. It appears that from the point of view of the Sun, the Earth still orbits in a plane, and as we like to pretend, all things are relative in a relativity universe. I never did figure out where that double torus came from, and I can’t see how it describes the Earth’s motion through space. But when you play with math, you can come up with some rather unique features that don’t seem to make sense. And try as they like, I am not sure all things can be stated in a mathematical formula. Then again, it might be a natural product of the global warming computer simulation.
The hocus pocus I’m speaking of involves such fantastical entities as space-time fabric, black holes, dark matter and dark energy. These are things that cosmologist’s have invented to keep the BBT theory viable. They can never be directly tested or even detected.
My mind is wide open to new ideas, which is why I’ve bought both of Mr. Felix’s books severeal times ( I keep giving them away under the pretext of a loan) and find much more supportive evidence in plasma cosmology than I do for Big Bang Theory.
Instead of glibbly criticising me, do a little research into plasma cosmology and the Electric Universe theory.If you have an open mind, I think you’ll enjoy it and understand my post a bit better. You will also find that both of these theories dovetail quite nicely with Mr. Felix’s theories. They are based on direct observational science, the way science is supposed to be done.
hi DW,
let me guess that you’re favouring
“Electric Universe” theory, and disparaging
Big Bang Theory in order to reconcile
with a “young earth” theory as suggested
by some interpretations of Genesis 1.
I suggest some lines of investigation for you:
1.BBT and Genesis 1. are pretty much
IDENTICAL. even Einstein concedes this.
2a.the “young earth” theory hinges on
the KJV interpretation of the Hebrew
word “Yom” as the English “Day”. the
bible itself uses “yom” to denote
various time-frames from 12 hours
to eons. my personal view is that
the “young earth” interpretation
of Genesis is due to an overly simple
KJV interpretation of the original
Hebrew.
2b.BBT was in fact developed and presented
by a Roman Catholic priest who saw
it CONFIRMING Genesis. in fact it
was EINSTEIN who sought to bring in
various mathematical terms to falsify
BBT, not the other way around.
3.scientific theories are verfied
by making non-obvious predictions, then verifying them thru experiment.
4. this has been done for both curved
space-time (light bending around the sun), BBT theory (prediction of the 3K
cosmological back-ground radiation),
black holes (you can observe their
ENORMOUS gravitational effects) tho
NOT dark matter or dark energy — I
believe these are still awaiting (or may never get) experimental verification.
5.I found “Electric Universe” theory
to be a fun diversion, because it’s
obviously been put together with
some physics expertise. but it’s been
falsified by: observing the byproducts
of nuclear fusions with gas spectroscopy; NASA sattelites don’t
observe the onslaught of electrons falling
into the sun as required by the theory;
I think the earth being knocked from
Saturn’s orbit to its present location
would leave a MASSIVE geological and
geo-magnetic record which simply
hasn’t been seen. a fun theory, but
not needed if you discard the young
earth theory.
Respectfully,
-LP
Right now you are moving 1,342,000 mph.
447,000 mph of that is our solar system’s rotation around the galactic center.
Reference
Movement relative to what? Movement relative to where? Galaxy? Supercluster? Big Bang? All of the above?
I always wondered what they meant by double torus or loop of the cylinder, thanks for the visual aid.
Just remember, unless the subject is man-made global warming – it’s all just a theory and up for debate!
Rotation of the Galaxy ,gravity and dark matter.
Journey Through The Milky Way Part 4 of 6
http://youtu.be/JYr0jCboPiA
min 3.00
Give these 5 articles a read and see what you think. Some of them are longish, but not terribly technical.
The video you linked has it exactly backwards. The dwarf galaxies don’t get consumed by the Milky Way, they are the offspring of the Milky Way.
I hope you enjoy the articles.
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toaaj/V004-SI0162TOAAJ.htm
Robert, LOVE your site.
as one who has studied special relativity, celestial mechanics, tho not general relativity, a couple of
comments:
1.the value in this post is if you’re interested, read
“pacemaker of the iceages, and learn about Malinkovitch
cycles.
2.I agree with some things the lecturer says, disagree
with others, can’t discover who he is, and whether he
has any scientific credentials, and what is the point
of view he intends this to make sense from.
the big picture:
1.most of our sun’s planets orbit in the plane defined by the sun’s equator; each of them “wobbles”
like a top
2.the sun and most stars orbit in the galactic plane
each “wobbling”; his “corck-screw” diagram is OK
3.this is sufficient for this site, and you should
go out and get the “pace-maker” book if interested
4.he’s right that coriolis foces produce clock-wise
and counter-clockwise hurricanes N and S poles, and
WRONG that it affects the water in your bath tub
5.the “double torus” depicts the space-time manifold
of the UNIVERSE, not the earth travelling thru space
6.special relativity and curved space-time is pretty
much viewed as PROVED fact and not speculative at all.
you can verify this by observing we have atom bombs,
nuclear reactors, and the light from distant stars
“bends” around the sun.
7.general relativity or “why” space-time is bent is
still SPECULATIVE — for the purposes of iceagenow,
you can ignore all the space-time stuff, it has no bearing
on whether we’re headed into an ice age.
Best,
-LP
I would like to address a number of the lecturer’s
statments that previous understandings are “wrong”.
in Physics today, everything IS relative, and we take
the frame, the coordinate system, and resulting simplifications that make understanding and solving the problem
easiest.
1.it is WRONG to view the planets as rotating in the
solar plane. well, this is perfectly correct in the
sun’s frame of reference, and it’s good enough for
NASA to do all it’s current and past work. this statement
REALLY makes me suspect this guy isn’t a physicist,
mathematician, or engineer.
2.it’s WRONG that the earth is flat. well, within
certain limits the tangential plane to the surface
of the earth is a very useful approximation. civil
engineers from Rome, Egypt, Babylon, etc were able
to put up buildings that lasted thousands of years
using this approximation. I’d say that 99.99999%
of all current engineering — civil, mechanical,
electrical, etc proceeds perfectly well today using
this approximation. unless Robert has designed
a space-station or sattelite, I would bet he has
gone thru his whole career desiging structures using
the flat earth approximation.
Best,
-LP
LP,
Physics today suffers from a case of believing is seeing and that is a direct result of concensus thinking and “relativity” in general. If A ACTUALLY happens before B, your frame of reference doesn’t alter that reality. Just because you see B before A doesn’t change the fact that A occurred first.
If you follow the climate debates at all, you’re aware that CO2 and temperature change have a link. AGW believer’s frame of reference is that CO2 precedes warming when actual facts reveal that warming is preceding CO2 levels.
This reveals a fatal flaw in Einstein’s theories: Perception does not alter reality. Never has, never will. Modern cosmology and physics has allowed the tool, mathematics, to become the master. Math is a conceptual tool used to describe physical phenomena. It is not, in and of itself, a physical phenomena. Just because the right numbers cancel out in an equation doesn’t mean that the equation is correct in the real world. Actual observation trumps the theoretical every time.
Respectfully,
DW
hi DW,
I like your approach of setting the
problem in a Philosophy of Science
context, where we decide whether AGW
is “science” or “not science” depending on whether it conforms to
scientific principles and methodologies.
I’ll elaborate some of your points and
introduce another — Karl Popper’s “falsifiability”
the idea that causes precede effects
is from Greek logic, and pre-dates
or is a prerequisite for scientific
thought — all causes MUST precede
effects or it’s not Western thought,
or Western science.
I agree the current GW trend started
before the industrial revolution and
industrial CO2 emissions, therfor
AGW is NOT science.
I agree that atmospheric CO2 rises
AFTER a warming trend, therefor AGW
is NOT science.
you and Einstein agree that if A
causes B, then it does so in all
frames.
specifically and exactly, the “interval” — “S” between A and B
is “invariant” (i.e. “the same”) in
all frames. this is just the
Pythagorean theorem in a Minkowski
space.
you and Einstein would disagree in
that where A doesn’t cause B, you
might see A happening before B in
some frames, and B happening before
A in others, but I don’t see that
Einstein’s relativity can be used
to support the idea that if A
(warming) occurs before B (CO2 rising) that B could cause A.
observation trumping theory as a
Philosophy of Science issue would
have been settled in the 1210 -1277
“condemnations” from the bishops
of Paris.
the IPCC mathematical model, or theory
matches no known actual thermometer
readings (i.e REAL observations) from
the last century — they exclude
cooling trends from 1945-1980 and
1997 to now, therefor AGW is NOT
science.
Karl Popper asserts that theories
that are not “falsifiable” are not
science or Western thought. i.e. if you can’t set up an experiment which
can prove the theory right or wrong,
or you keep changing your theory
to suit new facts then your theory
isn’t falsifiable, and it isn’t
science or Western logical thought.
e.g. there are many experiments
which could be performed to prove
Einstein’s theory of relativity
wrong. e.g. a faster than light
particle would falsify Relativity
and get you the Nobel prize in
Physics. the Physics world is
currently abuzz with the possibility
of FTL neutrinos which might have been
observed at CERN.
for over a century, the Best and the
Brightest have been performed every
conceivable experiment to falsify
Relativity to no avail — Relativity
isn’t believed because of some “consensus” by some clique of science
high priests, but because it hasn’t
been falsified yet.
“Electric universe” is a scientific theory in the sense that it can
be falsified.
essentially EU postulates the sun isn’t powered by hydrogen nuclear
fusions, it’s an electric plasma
discharge similar to a neon light.
you can falsify this by doing gas
chromatography/spectroscopy on the
sun’s corona to see if the byproducts
of nuclear fusions are there, or
investigating the results of the
Sudbury Ontario neutrino lab to see
if solar nuclear fusion is taking
place.
AGW proponents believe warming
proves AGW, and cooling does also.
i.e. it can’t be falsified, so it
isn’t Western thought, or Science.
Popper developed his falsifiability
criterion to prove that Marxism
wasn’t falsifiable, therefor it wasn’t
rational or scientific.
I think AGW isn’t falsifiable because
it’s a component of Marxist thought
which isn’t falsifiable.
hope this helps,
-LP
hey again DW,
some thoughts on Relativity
(Special, not the general theory):
1.I don’t see how it directly bears
on AGW — Classical celestial
dynamics are quite enough to understand Malinkovitch cycles which
seem to be affecting or causing
our ice age cycle
2.Relativity HAS been thoroughly
tested/proved by experiment (nice
Wikepedia article re. the
definitive experiments )
3.if you are skeptical, I STRONGLY
encourage you study some special
Relativity — the basic theory isn’t
that hard — it’s just an
application of the Pythagorean
theorem in 4-D space-time — no
biggee.
my FAVE introductory book is:
Special Relativity (The M.I.T. Introductory Physics Series) by A.P. French Paperback $30.98
it is a self-contained course that
you can work thru with high school
trig and calculus.
if you’re hazy, keep a diagram of
sin, cos, tan, sinh, cosh, tanh,
some common formulae, and their
differential and integral forms.
keep at it, and soon you will have
a detailed appreciation of one
of Science’s most spectacular
results.
absolutely see if you can get access
to high-school, university labs or
telescopes to prove or disprove
the classic experiments.
this is the Scientific approach,
this is a Scientific age, and I
strongly encourage you to be a part
of it.
I notice a quantum text in the same
series. I haven’t read that one,
but if it’s on the same level, absolutely go for it.
quantum is the one where observation
of microscopic particles affects
their state. get this book, and get
a fine detailed understanding of
what this is all about, and disprove
it if you can.
I’m not sure what you don’t like
about the “relativity” of it all.
I tried to think of any way that
Einstein’s theory was relative in
a way that Newton’s wasn’t, and
couldn’t.
I researched it a bit on the Net,
and it appears that Western physics
has been “relative” since Galileo,
in contrast to Aristotle who
postulated an absolute frame in
which things could be at “rest”, and
the stationary “ether” of Michelson/
Morely fame.
the Universe is thought to be
“isotropic”, or the same in every
direction, implying that there IS
no absolute frame, but recently
there has been some indication of
asymmettries (sp?) in the Universe, which
WOULD imply an absolute frame, in
which case we’d have to go back to
an Aristotlean or ether type frame.
but that’s over my head — don’t
know much about that.
TOTALLY recommend you pursue this
and be part of it.
-LP
Hey back at ya LP.
I think you misunderstood my link with consensus cosmology and AGW. The “concensus” part is what I was trying to make a point of. Concensus “science” has been wrong for the better part of human history.
I’m not a trained physicist, but I AM a trained electrical engineer, specializing in power generation and, therefore, EU is quite understadnable to me. I’m very comfortable in high school math.
Thank you very much for the references you listed. I would like to refer you to a couple of authors that you might find interesting.
http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
Of particular interest to your comment on chromatography/spectroscopy on the
sun’s corona:http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/papersCNO%20cycle.htm
This tells a somewhat different tale than the one you know. I hope you find it informative.
Respectfully,
DW
As Norm Smith said above:
“Right now you are moving 1,342,000 mph.
447,000 mph of that is our solar system’s rotation around the galactic center”.
The suns flight through the galaxy is just one motion of several.
The Milky Way is also traveling through space, and probably yawing, wobbling, rotating and possibly circling (orbiting), as it goes.
Whatever this motion is, has to be added to the sun and planets motion to get the true shape of their path.
There is probably at least one more larger, long term corkscrew produced by the movement of the galaxy.
The video is mostly correct, but the solar system is not rotating at 90 deg to the direction of travel of the Sun as it orbits the galaxy. This is easily viewable when looking up at the position of the milky way in the night sky with the angle being between 45 and 60 deg.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/jup_path.jpg
I truly appreciate seeing the intellectual and civil exchange here. I made the mistake of challenging an AGW article posted on the Huffington Post once. It had already been thoroughly shredded at sites like wattsupwiththat. No one could refute my points and questions, but it didn’t stop about 24 people from hurling invective and ad hominem attacks my direction.
I started reading articles on junkscience.com around 2000. There have been posted literally hundreds of articles in the category of “scientists once thought, but now believe, know, think, etc.” What I determined is that “consensus” is a myth and not part of the scientific method to begin with. There have been recent battles with Dr. Stephen Hawking and even he has reversed a position in the recent past (I think it had something to do with light being able to escape a black hole).
One thing that has always piqued my interest though: It seems when the math doesn’t work out, physicists just add a new dimension (also not observable). Are we up to 11 now?
One other note with regard to “consensus”. It was an absolute “fact” in the scientific community that the cosmos had an infinite past, right up until the consensus became the big bang theory. Physicists have to admit that a supernatural event occurred – most just don’t believe it was caused by a supernatural being.