If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boing Boing)   The helical model of the solar system you learned in the third grade? About that   (boingboing.net) divider line 99
    More: Interesting, third grade, vortexes  
•       •       •

7109 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 Dec 2012 at 3:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-27 03:22:13 PM
I think we'd notice the Sun emitting a light-year long jet from its South Pole.

The Solar System is moving due to gravitation, not thrust.
 
2012-12-27 03:23:23 PM

Boojum2k: I think we'd notice the Sun emitting a light-year long jet from its South Pole.

The Solar System is moving due to gravitation, not thrust.


Fairly sure that was added merely to illustrate the point, and to help visualize the mechanics.
 
2012-12-27 03:25:23 PM
This is almost as silly as the Time Cube.
 
2012-12-27 03:27:54 PM
Whoa.
 
2012-12-27 03:28:53 PM

Modguy: Fairly sure that was added merely to illustrate the point, and to help visualize the mechanics.


Kinda ballsy though to claim the heliocentric model is wrong, and then show a new model of the Solar System with such a huge error. Also, image was missing the distinct wobble the Sun should have relative to Jupiter, their barycenter is outside of the Sun.
 
2012-12-27 03:29:23 PM
Won't someone think of the potatoes?
 
2012-12-27 03:30:10 PM

Boojum2k: Modguy: Fairly sure that was added merely to illustrate the point, and to help visualize the mechanics.

Kinda ballsy though to claim the heliocentric model is wrong, and then show a new model of the Solar System with such a huge error. Also, image was missing the distinct wobble the Sun should have relative to Jupiter, their barycenter is outside of the Sun.


trololololololol
 
2012-12-27 03:31:05 PM

Boojum2k: I think we'd notice the Sun emitting a light-year long jet from its South Pole.

The Solar System is moving due to gravitation, not thrust.


It also doesn't move perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, but the guy who made the video "doesn't buy into that".

Alrighty then. Never let the facts get in the way of your creative epiphany, then.
 
2012-12-27 03:31:33 PM
So, it isn't gravity, the Universe sucks.
 
2012-12-27 03:31:42 PM
A: it's "heliocentric", not "helical".

B: This is something I've known since grade school, it's just a good visualization of it. The plants still revolve around the sun, they just do it while also travelling laterally through space AS A COMPLETE UNIT. It's not like Suddenly they are revolving around another body, it's still the sun.
 
2012-12-27 03:32:24 PM

Boojum2k: Modguy: Fairly sure that was added merely to illustrate the point, and to help visualize the mechanics.

Kinda ballsy though to claim the heliocentric model is wrong, and then show a new model of the Solar System with such a huge error. Also, image was missing the distinct wobble the Sun should have relative to Jupiter, their barycenter is outside of the Sun.


The guy's planetary models were entirely too close in their orbits, as well.
 
2012-12-27 03:33:18 PM
Let's see, the Sun and planets are moving through space while the planets orbit the Sun.

Nope, that pretty much matches exactly with what I was taught in 3rd grade.
 
2012-12-27 03:35:11 PM
So what he(?) is saying that the model as used these days is fundamentally correct but if you want the entire story you should go and study it more than what you got during a basic education? Because I'm pretty sure astronomers have been correcting for the movement of the spiral arm for quite some time.
 
2012-12-27 03:37:16 PM

LesserEvil: Boojum2k: I think we'd notice the Sun emitting a light-year long jet from its South Pole.

The Solar System is moving due to gravitation, not thrust.

It also doesn't move perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, but the guy who made the video "doesn't buy into that".

Alrighty then. Never let the facts get in the way of your creative epiphany, then.


I'm fairly certain a bong played a large part in this.
 
2012-12-27 03:37:23 PM

pudding7: Let's see, the Sun and planets are moving through space while the planets orbit the Sun.

Nope, that pretty much matches exactly with what I was taught in 3rd grade.


But this is different, man, because everything is moving in THREE DIMENSIONS. Like, woah, by voice totally echoed there, that was cool.
 
2012-12-27 03:37:53 PM
Really, this video is "wrong" for the same reasons it claims the standard disk model is "wrong".

The sun does not travel in a straight line, it orbits the galactic center while the galaxy itself is shooting through space and may itself be orbiting something even larger (see Dark Flow). If the disk model is wrong because it looks different when you pull back the frame of reference, then his vortex model is wrong when you do the same, because his perfect little vortex starts bouncing around the universe like a superball on crack.
 
2012-12-27 03:37:58 PM

LesserEvil: Boojum2k: I think we'd notice the Sun emitting a light-year long jet from its South Pole.

The Solar System is moving due to gravitation, not thrust.

It also doesn't move perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, but the guy who made the video "doesn't buy into that".

Alrighty then. Never let the facts get in the way of your creative epiphany, then.


Ok. That's what I was wondering; if the movement of our system was in the direction of the sun's pole axis like that.
 
2012-12-27 03:38:29 PM
Except our solar system is not traveling in a straight line. It is orbiting the center of our galaxy, which itself isn't stationary. It's all about your frame of reference. However, it is interesting because the solar system with the sun being the stationary point of reference is usually the farthest out depiction that us laymen usually consider, so you can tend to forget that the whole thing is also moving quite fast through space.

In other words, Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving and revolving at nine hundred miles an hour...
 
2012-12-27 03:39:24 PM

give me doughnuts: This is almost as silly as the Time Cube.


I was thinking the same thing. As soon as I saw "Life is Vortex" I was thinking someone was educated stupid.
 
2012-12-27 03:39:31 PM
Helical?
 
2012-12-27 03:40:47 PM
Anyone else notice Jupiter and Saturn in the wrong order, orbiting in lockstep?

I really was hoping for "why this is important" would be something interesting and not Crystal and Trinket store pablum like "Because snails and flowers and living things."
 
2012-12-27 03:41:34 PM

cgraves67: LesserEvil: Boojum2k: I think we'd notice the Sun emitting a light-year long jet from its South Pole.

The Solar System is moving due to gravitation, not thrust.

It also doesn't move perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, but the guy who made the video "doesn't buy into that".

Alrighty then. Never let the facts get in the way of your creative epiphany, then.

Ok. That's what I was wondering; if the movement of our system was in the direction of the sun's pole axis like that.


I thought that was a little odd in the video, but didn't think to call it out. I guess I should have been more skeptical of a video that ends like this one does.
 
2012-12-27 03:42:06 PM

LesserEvil: Boojum2k: I think we'd notice the Sun emitting a light-year long jet from its South Pole.

The Solar System is moving due to gravitation, not thrust.

It also doesn't move perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, but the guy who made the video "doesn't buy into that".

Alrighty then. Never let the facts get in the way of your creative epiphany, then.


Yeah. 60 degrees, which would make his "vortex" look a bit farked up.
 
2012-12-27 03:47:17 PM

Theaetetus: LesserEvil: Boojum2k: I think we'd notice the Sun emitting a light-year long jet from its South Pole.

The Solar System is moving due to gravitation, not thrust.

It also doesn't move perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, but the guy who made the video "doesn't buy into that".

Alrighty then. Never let the facts get in the way of your creative epiphany, then.

Yeah. 60 degrees, which would make his "vortex" look a bit farked up.


It would look cooler, just wouldn't fit the crystal winky-twinky woowoo.
 
2012-12-27 03:49:47 PM
There is a very easy way to determine if the heliocentric plane is parallel or perpendicular to the galactic plane, and fortunately you can walk outside right now and see it (which is a rare occurrence to have it line up so nicely).

You can see the band of the milky way behind the sun (which was part of the whole mayan doomsday thing, the galactic alignment). That shows that the solar system is parallel to the galactic plane as you can see the line formed by the Eath, the Sun, and the center of the galaxy. If it were perpendicular, then at no point could this alignment occur.

And if we want to get technical, the Eart/Sun/Galactic Center alignment is pretty darned routine, its just rare that we get all of the tilts and timing to line up for us to see it so easily.
 
2012-12-27 03:53:23 PM
Oh, look. More New Age bullshiat.
 
2012-12-27 03:53:25 PM

Edymnion: There is a very easy way to determine if the heliocentric plane is parallel or perpendicular to the galactic plane, and fortunately you can walk outside right now and see it (which is a rare occurrence to have it line up so nicely).

You can see the band of the milky way behind the sun (which was part of the whole mayan doomsday thing, the galactic alignment). That shows that the solar system is parallel to the galactic plane as you can see the line formed by the Eath, the Sun, and the center of the galaxy. If it were perpendicular, then at no point could this alignment occur.

And if we want to get technical, the Eart/Sun/Galactic Center alignment is pretty darned routine, its just rare that we get all of the tilts and timing to line up for us to see it so easily.


I'm not sure about you, but I have trouble seeing the other stars during the daytime.
 
2012-12-27 03:54:33 PM

Mikey1969: A: it's "heliocentric", not "helical"


And since "helical" actually means spiral, subby is extra bonus dumb

/subby here
 
2012-12-27 03:54:42 PM
Or the Soloar system can be pictured as being completely motionless in a general directional axis in space with all other objects having motion relative to our stationary solar system. which would mean that from a non-linear non-subjective point of view.. sorry got off track a bit there.

What I mean is that with no absolute motion in the universe on a macro scale the simplification of thinking of the Sun as a fixed point about which the planets rotate is just as correct as whatever that swirling mess was in the video.
 
2012-12-27 03:56:06 PM
That was a cool way to illustrate what the solar system in motion would look like if the system moved perpendicular to the invariable plane, but the fact that trails had to be added to illustrate this point also demonstrates why it doesn't really change anything. Vortexes are a property of matter: gases and liquids. Space is characteristically empty of matter. To say that the planets are "chasing" the sun through space implies that there is a force present to retard their motion relative to the sun. Not so. They were set in motion and will remain in motion until they succumb to a competing force.

As an analogy, if you put a turntable on a merry go round and turned it on, it would still be just a disc rotating on a larger rotating disc. It wouldn't mean that the outer edge of the record was chasing the spindle in a vortex.
 
2012-12-27 03:56:54 PM

Mikey1969: A: it's "heliocentric", not "helical".

B: This is something I've known since grade school, it's just a good visualization of it. The plants still revolve around the sun, they just do it while also travelling laterally through space AS A COMPLETE UNIT. It's not like Suddenly they are revolving around another body, it's still the sun.


Look, mate, you might live in a smoke ring, but the rest of us life on a planet, and our plants stay in the ground.
 
2012-12-27 03:57:20 PM
So what we're saying is that we're riding a drunken frisbee...
 
2012-12-27 03:57:35 PM
Well, the music was pretty cool, anyway.
 
2012-12-27 03:58:42 PM
hawcian: I'm not sure about you, but I have trouble seeing the other stars during the daytime.

You clearly live in the wrong hemisphere and/or are reading my comment during the wrong time of day. Please move to China or wait roughly 12 hours, then try your message again. =P
 
2012-12-27 04:00:52 PM
I was thinking they traveled on edge. Not north like that.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2012-12-27 04:01:50 PM
This thread is useless without links to the ancient Fark threads on geocentrism.
 
2012-12-27 04:02:37 PM
images.sodahead.com
 
2012-12-27 04:03:40 PM

Ed Grubermann: Mikey1969: A: it's "heliocentric", not "helical".

B: This is something I've known since grade school, it's just a good visualization of it. The plants still revolve around the sun, they just do it while also travelling laterally through space AS A COMPLETE UNIT. It's not like Suddenly they are revolving around another body, it's still the sun.

Look, mate, you might live in a smoke ring, but the rest of us life on a planet, and our plants stay in the ground.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-27 04:04:46 PM
That was kind of dumb for anyone with a high-school grasp of physics and motion. Frame of reference. How does it work?

"Rotational motion and vortex motion are completely different"

Actually, depending on your frame of reference, no they're not.
 
2012-12-27 04:05:46 PM

angry bunny: What I mean is that with no absolute motion in the universe on a macro scale the simplification of thinking of the Sun as a fixed point about which the planets rotate is just as correct as whatever that swirling mess was in the video.


The closest you can get to an absolute frame of reference is the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is slightly blue-shifted in one direction and red-shifted in the opposite direction due to our motion relative to the distant universe.
 
2012-12-27 04:05:51 PM

Boojum2k: Modguy: Fairly sure that was added merely to illustrate the point, and to help visualize the mechanics.

Kinda ballsy though to claim the heliocentric model is wrong, and then show a new model of the Solar System with such a huge error. Also, image was missing the distinct wobble the Sun should have relative to Jupiter, their barycenter is outside of the Sun.


Came to say this. Since the scale was already exaggerated with respect to the relative sizes of planets and closeness of orbits, it would be consistent with the visualization to show an exaggerated wobble in the Sun's path.
 
2012-12-27 04:15:06 PM
The author of that video came off as a total condescending prick.

Yes I can say "vortex".

No, your stupid 3 minute animation with music didn't really blow my freaking mind like I was on 20 hits of LSD and talking to a dog that I think is God.
 
2012-12-27 04:18:19 PM

Ed Grubermann: Mikey1969: A: it's "heliocentric", not "helical".

B: This is something I've known since grade school, it's just a good visualization of it. The plants still revolve around the sun, they just do it while also travelling laterally through space AS A COMPLETE UNIT. It's not like Suddenly they are revolving around another body, it's still the sun.

Look, mate, you might live in a smoke ring, but the rest of us life on a planet, and our plants stay in the ground.


LOL. OK, you win.
 
2012-12-27 04:30:40 PM

JRoo: No, your stupid 3 minute animation with music didn't really blow my freaking mind like I was on 20 hits of LSD and talking to a dog that I think is God.


My parents were very cool and honest about drugs growing up. I remember having a conversation with my stepfather, probably as an early teen, about the effects of marijuana; he'd been an avid user before coming into the responsibility of children. He said one of the major characteristics was that it made normally mundane or casual ideas seem mind-blowingly profound. He told me about a journal that he kept of all his good ideas he had while high, but when he picked up the journal while sober, it was just stuff like "THE EARTH AND THE SKY MEET AT THE HORIZON."

The last time I got high, which was years ago, I got obsessed with the question of how there is enough life on earth to feed all the life on earth. I had simplified the model in my mind to be just humans -- humans are the only life on earth and the only source of food for other humans. I was confounded by the fact that the human gestation period and rate of growth is just too long to provide a sustainable food source. This question blew my mind.

Of course, when I was of my right mind and revisited the same question, the answer was clear: humans have an exceptionally long gestation period and still average only one child per insemination, which is hardly representative of all life on earth. It was obvious, just not while I was high.

This video, and the way the creator anticipate minds being blown at its viewing, reeks of one of those ideas that a person has while under the influence, but which they fail to revisit from a more rational and skeptical mind after the fact.
 
2012-12-27 04:54:41 PM
THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING


//or nothing.
 
2012-12-27 04:57:32 PM
I had figured it would be more like the frisbee model mentioned above. See awesome, unrelated video.
 
2012-12-27 05:03:33 PM
I was looking forward to the "why is this important" explanation, but was highly disappointed when the answer was "because flowers!"
 
2012-12-27 05:06:18 PM
Let me see if I have this right:

The moon is revolving around the Earth while
the Earth is revolving around the Sun while
the Sun is revolving in the Milky Way galaxy while
the Milky Way galaxy is moving and accelerating away from the center of the universe.

Basically that's it, right?
Extra points: show the plot of the moon for one rotation around the Earth.
 
2012-12-27 05:07:29 PM

Glancing Blow: the Milky Way galaxy is moving and accelerating away from the center of the universe.


NO.

There is no "center of the universe."
 
2012-12-27 05:17:52 PM
I never knew Saturn had a closer orbit to the Sub than Jupiter. Hundreds of years of astronomical knowledge being turned upside down.
 
Displayed 50 of 99 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report