jack21221: 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."

OK, but I know I've been told that the galaxy is moving and that it's (still) accelerating. If not from some origination point than what is it's path?

Kiler: 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.

flux: AS I WAS SAYING

Imagine a massive plane full of points. You can't see far enough to see where they end. They are all slowly moving away from each other. Where's the center? That's what we have.

So if I read you correctly, the course of the galaxy is the direction at that instance in time resulting from the gravitational fields of all surrounding bodies.

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.

You, sir, are a gentle man and most definitely a scholar.

As for the rest: Well, duh! OF COURSE it's a vortex but 99.99999999999999999% of us don't normally think about it that way.

Big deal.

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 Fine Video is an exercise in visualization that could help folks better understand our solar system's relationship to the local cosmos, but certainly not an "everything you learned was wrong" kind of enlightenment. In fact, we weren't taught it wrong in 3rd grade, we just weren't taught it all and this video didn't really teach much more and by taking the model one half-step further, its omissions may do a disservice to reality.

Good lord, what a load of nonsense. I hope one one is taking any of that seriously.

Glancing Blow: 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.

Leave out the bit about the Milky Way "accelerating away from the center of the universe" and you'll be okay. There is no center to the universe according to current cosmology. As a crude analogy, consider whether there is a center to the surface of a sphere. And while the universe apparently is expanding at an increasing rate, that's an expansion of space itself, not an accelaration of objects moving through space. Again a crude analogy: draw two dots on the surface of a partially inflated balloon, then inflate the balloon some more. The distance between the dots increases, but you wouldn't really say the dots are accelerating across the balloon's surface.

///any real cosmologists around to tell me whether I got that right?

1. Holy crap! Motion is relative to your frame of reference! We should tell everyone this brand new information!

2. As mentioned higher in the thread, the motion is not perpendicular to the ecliptic. So the whole video it not just pointless but also wrong.

3. The reason they told you to stop watching at the 2:00 mark is because everything beyond that is bullshiat new age mumbo jumbo.

Tremolo: 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.

Yeah, but one is life.

Edymnion: 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

I think his issue (at least, if it's the same as my issue) is that it sounds like you are talking about seeing the milky way band behind the sun. If you can see behind the sun, it's daytime regardless of your timezone.

I thought the solar system's plane was roughly parallel to the galactic plane. So if I'm right, that video is a FAIL on a universal scale.

Raoul Eaton: Good lord, what a load of nonsense. I hope one one is taking any of that seriously.

THE YELLOW ONE IS THE SUN!

I kinda drunk at the moment, so even though the science was wonky and the video ended in WHOO territory, it was also pretty farking awesome.

jack21221: There is no "center of the universe."

My wife begs to differ.

Hollie Maea: Edymnion: 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

I think his issue (at least, if it's the same as my issue) is that it sounds like you are talking about seeing the milky way band behind the sun. If you can see behind the sun, it's daytime regardless of your timezone.

Well, if we're going to be really pedantic about it, we can go even further and tell him that everyone in the cities or other well lit spots can't really see the galactic band even if you could see it at night, too.

(To Edymnion's credit, the band is pretty goddamn big, so it's probably possible to view parts of it near dusk/dawn and infer that the sun is at the center of it.)

Sorry boingboing but there's so much fail to this it's not even funny.

hawcian: Hollie Maea: Edymnion: 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

I think his issue (at least, if it's the same as my issue) is that it sounds like you are talking about seeing the milky way band behind the sun. If you can see behind the sun, it's daytime regardless of your timezone.

Well, if we're going to be really pedantic about it, we can go even further and tell him that everyone in the cities or other well lit spots can't really see the galactic band even if you could see it at night, too.

(To Edymnion's credit, the band is pretty goddamn big, so it's probably possible to view parts of it near dusk/dawn and infer that the sun is at the center of it.)

I wouldn't know. I live in portland, so there's not so much seeing things in the sky this time of year unless those things are rain clouds.

amfv: jack21221: There is no "center of the universe."

My wife begs to differ.

Rimshot. You win this round.

DerAppie: Because I'm pretty sure astronomers have been correcting for the movement of the spiral arm for quite some time.

I'm pretty sure astronomers don't even understand the movement of the spiral arm (whatever that might mean). The spiral arms are patterns formed by the formation of bright, short-lived stars in star forming regions that (our best guess) are preferentially created in that pattern by compression waves from super-novae that occur a few million years after the formation of bright, short-lived stars.

If you think that the galaxy is moving in a direction and the solar system being in a spiral arm of a spinning galaxy, then the direction the sun is taking in the video is plausible.

CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: flux: the only reference points we have are other galaxies. And they're all moving away from us. And if you're in one of those galaxies, you would see all the other galaxies moving away from your galaxy.

Andromeda is calling on the white courtesy phone, and would like to have a few words with you...

99.999999% might as well be "all."

flux: AS I WAS SAYING

Imagine a massive plane full of points. You can't see far enough to see where they end. They are all slowly moving away from each other. Where's the center? That's what we have.

Here's an honest question. - to an observer within the system wouldn't an infinite expansion in space appear the same as an infinite contraction in space? At least as long as the actual universe is larger than the observable universe...

It's just that every time I hear about redshift I can't help but think that's what it would look like to someone being pulled into a black hole. I'm not sure it would make a difference about anything but it makes my brain whir late at night...

Meh, the dude was right - to a point.
But the sun isn't moving in a straight line. It's orbiting the center of the galaxy.

...Which is also moving. What makes galaxies move? We're not sure yet - but they do collide, so one can reasonably assume that it is not because of a singular event (ie: Big Bang).

Boojum2k: starsrift: What makes galaxies move? We're not sure yet

We're sure. It's gravity. What's producing it, in certain cases, can be a little obscure, such as the previously mentioned Dark Flow, and the Great Attractor for another, but gravity is the prime mover.

Well, that and dark energy, which is still a weird case.

I was aiming more for the cause of the gravity being unsure, yeah.

Boojum2k: starsrift: What makes galaxies move? We're not sure yet

We're sure. It's gravity. What's producing it, in certain cases, can be a little obscure, such as the previously mentioned Dark Flow, and the Great Attractor for another, but gravity is the prime mover.

Well, that and dark energy, which is still a weird case.

Everything is falling towards everything else and it's fantastic and beautiful and so cool to wrap your head around. The scale of it all makes me want to barf sometimes.

Like I'm in my own total perspective vortex...

Boojum2k: starsrift: I was aiming more for the cause of the gravity being unsure, yeah.

Oh okay, I mistook your meaning. Sorry about the pedantry.

But what's the cause for the cause? Sometimes I feel like I'm stuck in some horrifying existential moment of realization. And that realization is that this:

Wtf??? Why do I feel like laughing for no reason?

Anyone else get that feeling?

ko_kyi: Anyone else notice Jupiter and Saturn in the wrong order, orbiting in lockstep?

Came here to post that. Surely if it is so important to show the `correct` model of the solar system then you should at least try to get the little blue lines to be close to what the solar system actually does....

OhioKnight: DerAppie: Because I'm pretty sure astronomers have been correcting for the movement of the spiral arm for quite some time.

I'm pretty sure astronomers don't even understand the movement of the spiral arm (whatever that might mean). The spiral arms are patterns formed by the formation of bright, short-lived stars in star forming regions that (our best guess) are preferentially created in that pattern by compression waves from super-novae that occur a few million years after the formation of bright, short-lived stars.

Yeah, I meant the movement of the galaxy we are in, which has been known to be a spiral for quite some time. Otherwise it would be quite difficult to keep track of the planets that are being analysed.

/Mea culpa.

mcmnky: THE YELLOW ONE IS THE SUN!

Will someone please think about Pluto

flux: CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: Andromeda is calling on the white courtesy phone, and would like to have a few words with you...

I picked up the phone, but all I heard was this.

I'll admit, I had no idea that Andromeda was actually hurtling towards the Milky Way. That's pretty cool. Gonna be a hell of a night sky from Earth in 4.5 billion years.

Not sure how much you'll be able to see from Earth while inside the Sun.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Helical?

Perfectly cromulent term. Synonym of "solarly".

But what about perturbations of the celestial spheres due to planetary expansion from phlogistonic pressure causing Z-Rays in the luminiferous aether? There's no mention of that in the article. Nor Push Gravity. What about the Cosmic Jell-O Factor? If they're going to present an ostensibly more complete model than they think we have already, they should really do more including. Like showing Nut stretched across the sky and where Brahma's navel is.

Clearly there's aspects of the grade school model that aren't exactly sophisticated enough to be completely accurate. We're told lots of things when we're young that don't hold up as entirely true when we examine them as adults, are not told at all about a lot more things, and frequently find out a lot of things that we got the most emphatic and detailed instruction about aren't just not true, but wholly misleading.

Of course everything is in motion. Of course that motion has more than one axis. Of course all of the continuum that we know is just information in a holographic image of a long-dead chunk of a larger universe stored on an event horizon where, like electron flow vs. electrical current or the level of fluid surface in a glass that's being filled, we experience Time's Arrow moving inverse to the direction of the swallowed matter and energy so we experience anomalous effects of quantum fuzziness, nonlocality, weak gravity, dark matter and dark energy when really what we have is data compression artifacts, crosslinked optical transcription from refraction, and the illusory effects of compression vs. inertial drag, all as seen in reverse. ...I mean DUH!
/I guess I wouldn't believe in anything if it weren't for my Lucky Astrology Mood Watch.

flux: I picked up the phone, but all I heard was this.

I guess nobody told the aliens that everyone hates dubstep.

How the heck can we standup while hurdleing through space like that? I'm dizzy.

flux:

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.

Yeah I remember a stoned conversation with my roommates in college where we thought about ways to make government more responsive to the people. How you could have representatives from all the different communities in the country and how much better things would be with that connection. Obviously when I sobered up I realized we were basically just remaking the House of Representatives in our minds as if it didn't already exist.

Of course the House still doesn't serve its purpose that well but that's another story.