Summary of Part 1
So . . . . in a similar manner to my experience, we have someone (DjSadhu) discover a fact that:
- was never before shared with him in any form (school, documentaries, books, web sites, etc.), and
- was a revolutionary idea totally different from what he did learn, so he had to share his “aha” moment with others.
Unlike me (no video animation expertise) DjSadhu produces a slick video to show this newfound perspective, since he can’t find anything like it elsewhere.
What’s the response from the “interwebs”? 🙂
Critic – Phil Plait
As previously mentioned in Part 1, Mr. Phil Plait (Bad Astronomy) sets out to somewhat diplomatically criticize DjSadhu’s “aha moment” video. Short of an actual diagram or video Phil does do a nice job describing the motion via a text-only approach:
“It’s a bit like walking down a path while spinning around your head a string with a ball attached at the end (and the circle it makes tipped by 60°). Sometimes the ball is ahead of you and sometimes behind you. It always moves with you down the path no matter how fast you go, and relative to you is always moving at the same speed. If you trace your own motion you make a line, and the ball makes a tilted helix.”
Reader’s comments, including those requesting he produce his own video or work with DjSadhu to correct the errors and produce an accurate video fall on deaf ears and are never addressed. Mr. Plait cannot reference a source for a correct video from valid science, and doesn’t even care to address the lack thereof.
Critic – Jim Smith
A rather prolific YouTuber JimSmithInChiapas posted numerous videos attacking DjSadhu and anyone attempting to defend his vortex/spiral orbital path video. I can’t find Mr. Smith’s credentials anywhere but he was apparently offended and obsessed to the point that he created no less than five videos to counter DjSadhu’s videos and claims. They can be seen here, here, here, here and here.
He cares not that a layman produced these heretic videos. From his perspective it appears anyone who attempts to share revelatory knowledge of any sort better damn well have their scientific facts precisely aligned with orthodoxy – or else! Mr Smith, like Mr. Plait, points out valid errors, but he also appears to have a HUGE chip on his shoulder. He uses ad-homimen, derogatory remarks towards his perceived ‘nemesis’ who is sharing (heaven-forbid) an unscientific “aha” moment with the world. Mr. Smith goes so far as to call DjSadhu a “liar,” “defamer,” “fraud” throughout the comments on his videos.
See below for an exhaustive list of source references from Mr. Smith that supposedly validate his claim that science has written of this motion for years prior to DjSadhu. Surprise; they didn’t.
Supporter – Ché Pasa
A sympathetic blogger, Ché Pasa, wrote an article in support of DjSadhu’s videos and critical of the denigration in the response from the scientific community. He at least sees the videographer’s intent is to share that a flat 0o dinner-plate-model is not an accurate representation of solar system movement. (As the article states, DjSadhu calls this the heliocentric model – which it is, but inaccurately declares it wrong, when what he really means is that the concept of the flat dinner plate model moving horizontally is wrong with regards to the solar system’s motion through space.)
Within the article, I found this particular quote resonating with the behavior I’ve seen from various enlightened “scientists” and “skeptics” across the web:
“This tendency for scientists to become overwrought when their supposed fundamental beliefs are challenged, especially by untrained and probably unwashed people outside the field, has long been one of the least appealing behaviors of those in scientific practice. It suggests a violent streak on the one hand, and very tightly closed minds on the other, both of which, unfortunately, strongly resemble the mindsets of deeply religious and even cultic Believers.”
Mr. Smith also chimes in with several comments below the article using his orthodox bludgeoning technique, which is so embracing and helpful.
Critic/Instructor – Rhys Taylor
Here we have the rare individual who is both a scientist, critic and yet not above being an educator/instructor. Mr. Smith and Mr. Plait could learn much from Mr. Taylor (post-doctorate in astrophysics).
- He understands that DjSadhu’s first couple of videos have scientific errors, yet the basic premise of the solar system moving through space in a helical motion is for the most part correct.
- He takes a constructive win-win approach and works in a positive manner with DjSadhu to fix the errors in an attempt to produce a more accurate video than the original two.
The result? A third video by DjSadhu that according to Mr. Taylor is “a million times better and has correct physics.” Mr. Sadhu’s associated blog post to accompany that video is here. Here’s that video:
Mr. Taylor actually carried on a critical yet positive conversation with Mr. Sadhu – the ultimate intent towards a more accurate model. He even developed his own version of the helical motion to show DjSadhu the correct motion and inclination which can be viewed here.
All-in-all it seems that both parties had differences, but worked toward a better solution – using Mr. Sadhu’s video talents and Mr. Taylor’s knowledge and expertise to resolve the scientific errors of a layman, thereby producing something valid and usable to all of us.
“People, this should be seen as a win-win scenario. The essence of Sadhu’s original video was correct, and he’s publically declaring skepticism for the second one. His new effort has none of the quackery associated with the first. To me, that seems like the best of all possible outcomes. Demonising your opponents is no way to win them over – and sometimes, it turns out they were saying something valuable all along.” – Rhys Taylor
As shared by myself and Mr. Sadhu in his posts, it was very difficult to find any existing references to this helical motion model of the solar system. Even Mr. Taylor humbly admits there wasn’t anything like these videos in the public domain to describe this motion:
“I can see his point. [no previous standard model video] There certainly wasn’t a standard-model video out there – at least, certainly not one that’s anything like as pretty or as popular. It would definitely seem very unfair to debunk the person who made such a successful video demonstrating (pretty much for the first time) the motion of the Solar System through space.”
Mr. Smith is adamant that this just isn’t so. In one of his video descriptions linked above (and again here), he does us a nice service by listing no less than eighteen (18) sources he claims shows this solar system motion was already well known and understood before Mr. Sadhu’s videos. Excellent! Did they indeed demonstrate this? Let’s have a look . . . .
[Links shown in the image below are non-functional. See the links listed in Mr. Smith’s video description at the link above.]
Did these sources specifically mention that the sun moves in the galaxy?
- Yes, 17 out of 18 sources did so.
Perfect. This is basic and step #1.
Did these sources specifically mention or show the helical motion of the solar system as the sun moves through the galaxy?
- Only 2 out of 18 sources did so.
Fail. Recall . . . this is the very point DjSadhu made about not being able to find the helical model shared anywhere prior to creating his first video. This is also the crux of the issue – – wherein astronomers and physicists claim this helical motion is well-known and self-evident.
Did these sources describe the plane of the solar system as 60o orientation to the galactic plane?
- Zero (0) out of 18 sources describe the solar system plane at 60o to the galactic plane
- One (1) out of 18 sources describe the solar system plane at 0o to the galactic plane
- Two (2) out of 18 sources describe the solar system plane at 90o to the galactic plane
Fail. Recall . . . this angular plane was one of the grave errors made by DjSadhu when he showed it at 90o to the galactic plane – that it should be 60o. Mr. Plait and Mr. Smith hammered Mr. Sadhu for this error. Yet none of Mr. Smith’s references describe or show it as they claim it is. In fact….2 of 18 specifically share that it’s 90o!
And probably the greatest irony of all, source #1 from Harvard actually explains a visualization of the very “dinner plate”, 0o rotation and movement that Mr. Sadhu argues is an incomplete picture the general public has – and here we have it described thus by Harvard scientists! Quoted from the 9th paragraph in the paper:
“‘A graphic though crude and imperfect illustration of the character of the motions we have been describing is afforded by imagining a child seated on a whirling chair on a merry-go-round mounted on a flat car traveling along a straight railroad track.”
Flat rotation, within flat rotation, on flat forward movement.
It’s overtly disingenuous that Mr. Smith arrogantly claims his 18 sources plainly describe helical solar system motion within the galaxy – when in fact they don’t. He probably assumes his readers won’t bother investigating, or he didn’t bother doing so to a sufficient degree himself.
Other sources I found: pre- and post-DjSadhu
Mr. Smith’s sources fell flat on their face. What else can I find – helical or flat?
This article has one diagram showing the sun and earth moving forward into the interstellar wind and showing a “helium focusing cone” trailing. (Gee, this seems a lot like the sun leaving a tail as it moves. Mr. Sahdu was ridiculed for even suggesting an identical idea.)
The Earth’s orbit appears to be 90o perpendicular to the motion of the sun, but not specifically stated.
An example of the image can be seen here.
I already mentioned this in Part 1 and shared their diagram showing the solar system plane at what appears to be 60o to the galactic plane.
- 2009, Your Handle on the Night Sky (website) by Daniel Pope, August 16, 2009
I printed this article and saved its images about 2011 when I was trying to learn about celestial coordinates. It’s no longer accessible on the web and I cannot locate any archives containing it. A significant quote from astronomer Daniel Pope in this article:
“I can still recall how completely surprised I was when I first became aware that I could see this orientation in our night sky. I had barely recovered from that surprise when I was hit with a second. Our Solar System lies within the main disk of our Milky Way galaxy but is not in a parallel orientation to the main disk of stars. The plane of our Solar System, the Ecliptic, intersects the plane of the main disk of our home galaxy at about a 60-degree angle. I realized that my intuition had led me to think that the plane of our Solar System would lie within and be “parallel” to the plane of the Milky Way disk.” [emphasis mine]
- 2009, Wikimedia Commons
Earth’s orbital plane is shown at between perhaps 60o and 90o to the galactic plane. The diagram can be viewed here.
This is particularly interesting in that it comes from NASA. Look at the image below from the article. It shows the solar system as flat as it moves forward into the interstellar wind, 0o orientation. Mr. Plait and Mr. Smith may want to berate NASA for their incompetence in showing a relationship that is a grave error – and self-evident to all scientists.
It’s very faint and difficult to see the plane of the solar system, but if you look at a large version of the image here, you can see that the plane is shown as a flat 0o.
Shows and describes an angle of around 60o. The original image was created by Grant Hutchison and linked to his page here from the CosmoQuest forum noted above.
Interestingly enough this is a scientific article from a space and astronomy website. Mr. Nerlich specifically refers to the “dinner plate” model but alters it as follows:
“You should always put out the old dinner set when you have astronomers around. . . . My favorite dinner set demonstration is to use the whole table to represent the galactic plane – ideally with an upturned wide rimmed soup bowl in the middle to mimic the galactic hub. Then you get a plate to represent the solar system’s orbital plane and hold it roughly facing the galactic hub, but at a 63 degree angle from the horizontal. We know the equatorial plane of the Milky Way is tilted 63 degrees from the ecliptic – or vice versa since here we are arbitrarily making the galactic plane (table) the horizontal . . . . Now for the Earth. Wine glasses make an excellent Earth model since the stem can represent the Earth’s axis of rotation . . . . So, holding your plate at 63 degrees to the table, now hold the wine glass tilted at 23.5 degrees to the plate. Assuming you left your protractor at home – this will mean the wine glass stem is now almost parallel to the table – since 63 + 23.5 is close to 90 degrees. In other words, the Earth’s axis is almost perpendicular to the galactic axis.”
Fascinating! He starts with 63o but then ends up at near 90o (actually 86.5o).
So what’s right when trying to create a video of this geometric yet dynamic motion? Some “scientists” say 60o; some say 90o. Was Mr. Sadhu that far off to begin with? Even the scientists can’t agree.
Did DjSadhu’s early video efforts to show his “aha” revelation contain scientific errors? Yes
Did the videos share the essence of the spiral, helical motion of the solar system through the galaxy, as best as a layman can show? Yes
Do most lay-people instinctively perceive the solar system as moving like a flat dinner plate in a circle around a flat dinner table – along the galactic plane at 0o? I believe so. The huge public response to his videos, and the fact that scientists at times describe or show it as thus is convincing evidence (reference sources as noted above).
Was the helical model of the solar system motion through the galaxy widely known or self-evident? Absolutely not. SO many references above either don’t describe it at all, or when they do, they can’t agree.
Can you blame a layperson with video graphics talent when he wants to share this revelation of motion with the world? No.
From Mr. Taylor’s productive article and effort, a quote from Mr. Sadhu after his third video attempt:
“I’m not after words, but after images. So I left the words out. Vortex/helix, wrong/incomplete, all those terms are vulnerable ingredients in a video, and they are not the point! The point is how people ‘see’ the solar system. Although the helical paths may have been known to astronomers and astrophysicists (and part of the public), what people ‘see’ when they think about the solar system is in my opinion incomplete.”
I wholeheartedly agree. And the collaboration between Rhys Taylor and DjSadhu is a shining example that smug arrogance should be left at the door when attempting to discover and portray a more accurate picture of reality for all to appreciate and learn! Bravo.