Our Solar System -- Vortex or No?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by danshawen, Aug 29, 2015.

?

Which view seems more correct to you: Vortex or Heliocentric?

  1. Vortex (the Sun and the planets travel a helical path around the Milky Way)

    1 vote(s)
    100.0%
  2. Heliocentric (celestial mechanics is better understood with the Sun at a fixed location)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Funny, but that's how most here viewed your own behaviour under the other handle.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Pope Urban's behavior towards Galileo was unacceptable and child-like.

    I like both your responses. The OP question is satisfied.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Nice analogy.
    This thread seems to be much ado about nothing, at best and trying to create a false premise at worst.

    Just another interesting point re the Earth/planets orbiting the Sun, they actually orbit the solar system's, "barycenter" which is in the case of the Jupiter/Sun just outside the Sun's surface, hence the measurable wobble of the Sun in orbiting that barycenter.
    http://solarchords.com/solar-chord-science/astrophysicists-earth-orbit-sun-or-barycentre/
    Thought it worth a mention.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Both of course and for reasons as already explained.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  8. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Yes.
     
  9. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Just thought that this is relevant, the Heliocentric model as proposed few centuries back has one more rider, the sun being the center of Universe is also one of the proposition of this model apart from of course present day prevalent Planetary motion. Now of course Sun being center of Universe is irrelevant, so it is not Heliocentric model per say.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    No that's nonsense. The heliocentric model simply maintains through observation, the Sun as the center of the solar system, although in actual fact the baryonic center is more correct as detailed here.......
    http://solarchords.com/solar-chord-science/astrophysicists-earth-orbit-sun-or-barycentre/

    I suggest you read a few reputable links. Or supply some of your own.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism
    Heliocentrism, or heliocentricism,[1] is the astronomical model in which theEarth and planets revolve around theSun at the center of the Solar System. The word comes from the Greek (ἥλιοςhelios "sun" and κέντρονkentron"center"). Historically, heliocentrism was opposed to geocentrism, which placed the Earth at the center. The notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun had been proposed as early as the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos,[2]but at least in the post-ancient world Aristarchus's heliocentrism attracted little attention—possibly because of the loss of scientific works of the Hellenistic Era.[3]
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2015
  11. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    http://www.universetoday.com/33113/heliocentric-model/
    .......The heliocentric model is a theory that places the Sun as the center of the universe, and the planets orbiting around it. The heliocentric model replaced geocentrism, which is the belief that the Earth is the center of the universe.....

    Now of course this is not completly true. So, please note that you are right about planetary motion of our solar system, but this is not called as Heliocentric Model..

    If you still insist then I cannot help you any further.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Obviously you cannot help me any further, But I'll do my best to help you.

    http://muse.tau.ac.il/museum/galileo/heliocentric.html

    THE COPERNICAN MODEL OF THE PLANETARY SYSTEM - THE HELIOCENTRIC MODEL.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The word "helios" in Greek means "sun." Heliocentric means that the sun is at the center. A heliocentric system is one in which the planets revolve around a fixed sun. Thus Mercury, Venus, the Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn all revolve around the sun. The moon is the only celestial sphere in this system which revolves around the earth, and, together with it, around the sun.
    This theory was first proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus. Copernicus was a Polish astronomer.
    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    Of course you are correct in that it replaced the geocentric system, but Copernicus also explained the "apparent" Ptolemic model of the stars revolving around Earth by the following from the same link.......


    http://muse.tau.ac.il/museum/galileo/heliocentric.html
    The daily movement of all the stars around the earth, claimed Copernicus, could be explained by the rotation of the earth on its axis within a 24-hour period. The view experienced from an object revolving around itself is identical to the view experienced when all the other objects revolve around it.


    So obviously in Copernicus's mind, not the center of the Universe.

    In essence we have agreed [myself and the other contributors] on the question in the OP, and this seems to be a bit of pedant irrelevancy at best, or just ignorance at worst, as raised by yourself, and again strikingly similar in what rajesh would do.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/copernican.html

    The Copernican Model:
    A Sun-Centered Solar System
    The Earth-centered Universe of Aristotle and Ptolemy held sway on Western thinking for almost 2000 years. Then, in the 16th century a new idea was proposed by the Polish astronomer Nicolai Copernicus (1473-1543).

    The Heliocentric System
    In a book called On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies (that was published as Copernicus lay on his deathbed), Copernicus proposed that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the Solar System. Such a model is called a heliocentric system. The ordering of the planets known to Copernicus in this new system is illustrated in the following figure, which we recognize as the modern ordering of those planets.

    In this new ordering the Earth is just another planet (the third outward from the Sun), and the Moon is in orbit around the Earth, not the Sun. The stars are distant objects that do not revolve around the Sun. Instead, the Earth is assumed to rotate once in 24 hours, causing the stars to appear to revolve around the Earth in the opposite direction.
     
  14. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Recorded history cannot be twisted for the sake of argument..........I found the contents of your posts unreliable, you are not to be blamed for that.....

    Pl ref to the link...the translation of Book you referred.

    http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/3...e Revolutionibus (On the Revolutions),_ 1.pdf

    1. Page 23 as stated by Copernicus himself..

    .........Hence I feel no shame in asserting that this whole region engirdled by the moon,
    and the center of the earth, traverse this grand circle amid the rest of the planets in
    an annual revolution around the sun. Near the sun is the center of the universe.....

    2. Page 24

    The image shown is quite illustrative that Sun was envisaged as the Center of Universe by Copernucus...
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Your familiar antics and avoidance of relevant extracts remain........as does your useless pedant and general nonsense.......
    again, from the link........
    http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/copernican.html

    In this new ordering the Earth is just another planet (the third outward from the Sun), and the Moon is in orbit around the Earth, not the Sun. The stars are distant objects that do not revolve around the Sun. Instead, the Earth is assumed to rotate once in 24 hours, causing the stars to appear to revolve around the Earth in the opposite direction.


    and from
    http://muse.tau.ac.il/museum/galileo/heliocentric.html
    The daily movement of all the stars around the earth, claimed Copernicus, could be explained by the rotation of the earth on its axis within a 24-hour period. The view experienced from an object revolving around itself is identical to the view experienced when all the other objects revolve around it.
    Also on page 23
    But the size of the universe is so great that the distance earth-sun is imperceptible in relation to the sphere of the fixed stars.
    Of course if the stars are fixed, they do not revolve around the Sun
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2015
  16. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    This argument you guys are having is really unimportant. Yes, it is true that Copernicus placed the sun at the center of the universe, but so what? At the time, the nature of the stars was not understood and there was no term "solar system", so there was no real distinction to be made yet. So that's all beyond the scope of his work. His discoveries/innovations were:

    1. The planets (including Earth) revolve around the sun, not around the Earth.
    2. The earth rotates and that's responsible for the observed daily motions of the heavens.

    That the stars were centered around the sun instead of the Earth is an irrelevant aside: since their nature was unknown and they are so far away, there was no fuctional/observable difference between the two options. Even today, the difference is only really relevant to professional astronomers/cosmologists. Today, whether you're doing celestial navigation (on a ship or spaceship) or using a planisphere or go-to computerized telescope, all model the stars as existing on a fixed, earth-centered sphere.
     
    OnlyMe likes this.
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
     
  18. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    There is no dispute about present motion of our Solar System, whether you call it Heliocentric or Baryonic Centric or Center of Mass Centric, this is well established and known to all, I just brought to the notice that Heliocentric Model as envisaged by Copernicus has one more rider...that is, the Sun is treated to be at the Center of the Universe, which is facturally incorrect now. There is no nonsense involved in this statement, as seen by Paddoboy.

    I have noticed that apparently this Board is Serving some purpose to him. Even in this thread if you follow all his posts, first he supported Heliocentric, then he posted an article which derides the Helical motion aspect of OP (Implying that he is not supporting the Helical stuff), then he ridicules my post which talks of Helical motions, then suddenly he admits that both Heliocentric and Helical is ok......but finally he gets stuck at this Sun Centric Universe definition of Heliocentric Model. So he is learning from this Board, changing his stand time to time and even in between the arguments but without acknowledgement, does not matter. Purpose of the Board is served, I am happy.
     
  19. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Well said.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    No, as per usual and evidenced in all your posts, you are out for one reason, and that certainly isn't understanding.
    My stance has not changed nor has my opinion of you and who you were.
    The heliocentric system refers to our solar system, and the vortex extends that without invalidating it to the vortex model.

    Both models, within their particle reference frames are valid, just as a photon emitted directly radially away from a BHs EH, will appear to hover there forever, never succumbing and never getting away.
    You agree of course?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Looking forward to your next foray.....
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    This board is primarily serving science, and making sure pseudoscientific concepts put forward by amateur electricians, like BNS, are derided for the nonsense they are and end up where they should be in the fringes.
    If I helped serve that purpose among many other pseudo aspects re BHs, I'm happy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Your problem in understanding what is said is immense, as was evident in the many BH threads.
    The only things I disagreed with was [1] the question from the OP, which I presumed was elevating the vortex model over and instead of the heliocentric.
    Which I answered thus......
    and acknowledged...
    And the confusing nonsensical post above......


    All my links of course support the legitimacy of both depending on frames, with the heliocentric model always remaining valid.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    In reference to my post 37, I have made a total stuff up and contributed yhe following to Russ Waters......
    ...but finally he gets stuck at this Sun Centric Universe definition of Heliocentric Model. So he is learning from this Board, changing his stand time to time and even in between the arguments but without acknowledgement, does not matter. Purpose of the Board is served, I am happy.
    My sincere and regretable apologies to Russ for that misquote. As most would probably recognise it should go to the poster calling himself the god.
     

Share This Page