/sci/ - Science & Math

Nobody writes a journal paper on why a youtube video is wrong.

You can research the claims made in these articles yourself if you have half a brain. The points raised in the bad astronomy post are all correct.

The video is nonsense and the claim that heliocentrism is wrong simply ignorant.

>>6327279
Not a journal paper on why the youtube video is wrong. Just on the motion itself.

I r not that dum...

>>6327279
Wait, doesn't the animation show that the sun is the center of the solar system?

>>6327257
It's correct without all that /x/ feels bullshit, if you zoom out far enough that is roughly how it goes.

>>6327288
There are papers on galactic motion but the ones that cover this stuff will have been written about a hundred years ago and be incomprehensible if you've never studied astronomy. Articles are not written to the laymen, even review papers require prerequisite knowledge.
You'd be better off looking for an undergraduate textbook on galaxies and the milky way.

>>6327291
It does but the author of these videos claims that this view of things is somehow more correct and that Keplerian heliocentrism is wrong.

>>6327305
While I don't buy into the whole spiral life bit, the idea of a spiral motion could be the key to solving the galaxy rotation speed issue. And it matches nicely with the some gravity wave theories. We should look into this more.

I bet it would go to something like saying the spiral model is better, but not noticeably so for systems smaller then a few light years. Much like Newtonian physics works for most things, but general relativity is better. So that doesn't really say Keplerian heliocentrism is wrong, just less right.

One critical issue is the lack of observational spacing. It would be easier to see galaxy level trends if we had more then one solar system to use as an observation point.

>>6327402

>>6327402
>the idea of a spiral motion could be the key to solving the galaxy rotation speed issue.
It isn't. In no way could explain the rotation curve problem simple because it is no different to existing models if executed correctly.

>And it matches nicely with the some gravity wave theories.
This has nothing to do with gravitational waves even less to do with gravity waves.


You've completely failed to understand the point. The point is that if you properly mapped out the motion of the solar system though the galaxy (without the many flaws of these videos) it would be COMPLETELY equivalent to having a static barycenter. This model is no different and it offers nothing. It's just a flawed video and some ignorant claims.

>>6327298
No, it's wrong. The way the video describes it is wrong. The way the video shows it is wrong. The main orbital plane in our solar-system is not perpendicular to our orbital plane in the galaxy.

the normal way of considering things is not based on extending them through space over time. google maps shows you a route that is relative to the earth, not relative to the sun, or the orbit of the earth, because that is adding uneeded, complicating, irrelevant information, and is, thus, fucking retarded.

>>6327494
(even when the extraneous information you are adding is correct, and this model of the solar system does not add correct information)

The person that posted this to YouTube should be taken behind the chemical sheds and shot, scientifically speaking.

>>6327441
First let's note that I never said it IS the answer, just that it COULD be the answer to rotation curve problem. So we should look into it more.

> because it is no different to existing models
It is very different as it adds a new axis of freedom. Looking at it from a total length perspective, it has farther to travel. As such it should be subjected to more dramatic time dilation effects which changes everything when dealing on a galactic scale. See GIF

As for the static barycenter, the points would have the same values. The thing is the spiral model has another variable which doesn't factor into static barycenter because the static barycenter uses classical mechanics. But this extra variable does become relevant when we use Barycentric Coordinate Time which is what you should be using for things like this as it takes into account relative differences that happen.


As for gravitational waves vs gravity waves. Gravitational waves is the correct term, however it seems to me that whichever term I use is the opposite the person I am talking with uses and thus "corrects" me. I know it is wrong but I use them interchangeable at this point largely due to having to deal with too many people who don't use the correct terms. Sure layman terminology is wrong, but we live in a world full of layman.

>>6327571
We shouldn't because it doesn't help the problem at all. Adding in the motion of stars around planets does not affect the over all rotation curve of a galaxy unless the systems are on average aligned to us. Secondly this motion is tiny in comparison to galactic rotation, it cannot explain dark matter.

It doesn't solve shit.

>It is very different as it adds a new axis of freedom. Looking at it from a total length perspective, it has farther to travel. As such it should be subjected to more dramatic time dilation effects which changes everything when dealing on a galactic scale.
No. It's not new. This is not the first time some one has thought the Sun orbits the barycenter.

>As for the static barycenter, the points would have the same values.
I have no idea what you're trying to say now. People do not ignore special and general relativity when doing very fine calculations. If you're trying to allege that the barycenter would be subject to rotational motion and thus the time dilation would be off you would be wrong. Even in this model the barycenter is static. It may move round the galaxy but it does not move in a helix.

Gravity waves and gravitational waves are vastly different terms. To use them interchangeable is to equate a duck and a banana. Neither of them have anything to do with this. Gravitational waves are such a minor effect you cannot detect from in a system like this. Please explain how they have anything to do with this.

>>6327571
>just that it COULD be the answer

the answer to the rotation curve problem could also be that it is a side effect of the combined mass of all of the Bronies in Washington state that are between the heights of 5' 6" and 6' 2".

but, very much like this helical model, the overwhelming likelihood, that makes even considering this concept any further an exercise in mental masturbation, is that it almost certainly fucking is not.

Why does the retarded video show the solar system traveling perpendicular to the axis of rotation. This shit pisses me off to no end. i would personally execute the creator of this video with a bullet if I knew him.

>>6327615
>Gravity waves and gravitational waves are vastly different terms.

please explain the difference

Why is this being debated? There is nothing to debate here, this video is objectively wrong.

>>6327736
A gravity wave is the wave of a fluid boundary in a gravitational field, like waves on a pond.

A gravitational wave (sometimes abbreviated as gravee waves) is a result of Einsteins general relativity where certain moving objects like two orbiting black holes or an oscillating neutron star will produce propagating gravitational disturbances (sometimes called ripples in spacetime), radiating away energy. Although most systems produce gravitational waves they are usually very very weak (Earth Sun orbit system radiates less than 50 Watts via gravitational waves). It is hoped in the next few years LIGO and VIRGO or pulsar timing will make the first direct detection of gravitational waves.

Vastly different.

>>6327736
>Why cant I google?

>>6327615
Let me try this a different way. You know how acceleration and gravity have so much in common that some setups treat them the same. And you know how gravity can bend light making things appear to be in a different location then they are under a global setup. (this is not going into the issue of the fact space itself is bending so one can argue if it really is a straight line or a curve). Now if we also add super large gravitational waves and accept the fact we have a limited perspective of space. We can make an argument that what we see is only part of the picture and something else must account for the differences. The large number of moving bodies in the galaxy do things, but if we assume that they are moving even more then we originally thought then we can use it to help account for other things. Spiraling planets and star systems bobbing on super massive gravitational waves adds up to a lot of stuff and can't be easily observed given how limited perspective of space is. So this massive amount of stuff can help account for other things, such as the galactic rotation issue. I don't know how big of a factor it is, but it makes sense it could be a significant factor. Heck even if it only accounted of 1% it would be a huge deal despite how tiny in comparison.

>>6327640
That is a nice mix of an implied ad hominem and a well transitioned red herring. But you could have just explained why you think I am wrong in the first place. Or at least explained why there are other more pressing things that need to be looked at first. Also it is worth pointing out that I am using A helical model, not THIS helical model. This video does has several errors in it, like the one >>6327638 pointed out for starters. Lastly there is no reason for such profanity when trying to constructively critic someones idea, such profanity is just rude and uncalled for.

>>6327825
>there is no reason for such profanity when trying to constructively critic someones idea, such profanity is just rude and uncalled for.
what the fuck are you talking about? pointing out that bullshit is bullshit isnt "constructively critic someones idea". and stop acting like you are a preschooler. fuck you annoy me.

>>6327825
This is just word salad, you aren't saying anything.

>You know how acceleration and gravity have so much in common that some setups treat them the same. And you know how gravity can bend light making things appear to be in a different location then they are under a global setup

People know about this already. The acceleration of the Sun around the galaxy is responsible for the proper motions of quasars. Again, this model adds nothing, the galaxy orbits, no shit.

>Now if we also add super large gravitational waves and accept the fact we have a limited perspective of space.

What gravitational waves? You still haven't answered what you think they have to do with this.

>The large number of moving bodies in the galaxy do things, but if we assume that they are moving even more then we originally thought then we can use it to help account for other things.

That's hand wavey bullshit. People knew about this before these videos. It is literally how the radial velocity method of find extra solar planets works. This however cannot explain the rotation curve problem. I've told you why.

> Spiraling planets and star systems bobbing on super massive gravitational waves adds up to a lot of stuff and can't be easily observed given how limited perspective of space is.

No, no, no. The gravitational waves from planets is microscopic. They have fuck all to do with this.

> I don't know how big of a factor it is, but it makes sense it could be a significant factor.
Except we do because we have GR which predicts gravitational waves to within experimental errors.

>Heck even if it only accounted of 1% it would be a huge deal despite how tiny in comparison.

But it won't because these effects would cause broadening of lines not changes to rotational profiles. And no, 1% would be within experimental errors.

Let me make something crystal clear. Nobody who makes these measurements has forgotten that the solar system moves round the galaxy.

>>6327860
I assume that large gravitational waves distort our measurements, so part of the data often used is used incorrectly.

You assume the gravitational waves are from planets. I assume they are remains of the big bang shaking the whole universe, which is why they are so big they are hard to see with out current capabilities.

It is true GR predicts gravitational waves and could aid in addressing this. But what I meant was that I haven't done those calculations yet, so I can give a value yet. Part of it is getting all the data to input into it, some key parts are missing.

You are forgetting how frame dragging can have secondary effects which can effect rotational profiles of larger systems.

How did you get the implication someone had forgotten that the solar system moves round the galaxy?
That 1% is referring to 1% of the whole universe. If we are ignoring things like that under experimental errors then we need to start over by admitting we have no idea about astrophysics.

>>6327899
>I assume that large gravitational waves distort our measurements, so part of the data often used is used incorrectly.
No, if they did it would be fantastic because they would have been detected. In reality you really have to look for them.

>You assume the gravitational waves are from planets
Forgive me if I don't understand your ramblings. Things don't "bob up and down" on gravitational waves, that's not what they do.

>I assume they are remains of the big bang shaking the whole universe, which is why they are so big they are hard to see with out current capabilities.
If you cannot detect them they will not affect your measurement. If they are very long wavelength they will have no effect.

>But what I meant was that I haven't done those calculations yet, so I can give a value yet.
So what you mean is you have absolutely no idea, fantastic.

>You are forgetting how frame dragging can have secondary effects which can effect rotational profiles of larger systems.
How? Specifically.

>How did you get the implication someone had forgotten that the solar system moves round the galaxy?
Because you parrot this "model" as if it is somehow new. As if no one had considered the relativistic deflection of light.

>That 1% is referring to 1% of the whole universe.
Accept that's not how it works. You took 1% I still say nothing and you have yet to show otherwise.

I'll make this simple.

How, specifically, would what you are proposing be different from existing models?
How, specifically, would this affect rotation curves?
What do gravitational waves even have to do with this?

>>6327483
>No, it's wrong. The way the video describes it is wrong. The way the video shows it is wrong. The main orbital plane in our solar-system is not perpendicular to our orbital plane in the galaxy.

[Citation Needed]

>>6327772
Pls explain. I'm a layman.

>Do the planets revolve around the sun?
>Does the sun revolve around the galactic center?
>Wouldn't it look something like that in the video? and this gif? >>6327571

>>6328193
Look at any basic positional astronomy book, or alternatively, the sky.

>>6328209
Or maybe you could read the links in the OP.

>>6328193
>>6328209
You two need to learn how to do basic research.