[headdie]

http://robertjackson.info/index/2013/03/what-our-solar-system-looks-like-from-a-non-fixed-view-of-the-sun/

Animation of what the solar system looks like when the pov is not fixed relative to the system

[The E]

Unfortunately, as Phil Plait points out, it's pretty much wrong

[Scourge of Ages]

Well. I learned one thing: The plane that the solar system orbits on is at a 60 degree angle to the galactic plane, as opposed to parallel as I always assumed. Neat.

[watsisname]

I think Phil Plait went way too ape**** over this.  Looking at the video, the planets are not trailing the sun.  They're all effectively in the same plane.  It's the ghost trails that lag it, and those are there just to show the motion.  (Or maybe my eyes just fail me).

You can do exactly the same thing that this video shows by using Gravitation 3D.  You can also see a similar effect if you look at the orbit of Cassini in Celestia.  It isn't wrong, it's just looking at celestial motions from a different frame of reference. 

Saying that the heliocentric model is wrong though is indeed stupid, I give Phil that.  And he's also correct about the orientation of the solar system with respect to the galactic plane, and the sun's actual path through the galaxy.  But those are details that I don't think detract from what the video is trying to show -- the helical motion of planets with respect to the galaxy.

[Legate Damar]

Either way, it will soon be my new conquest

[Luis Dias]

I think Phil Plait went way too ape**** over this.  Looking at the video, the planets are not trailing the sun.  They're all effectively in the same plane.  It's the ghost trails that lag it, and those are there just to show the motion.  (Or maybe my eyes just fail me).

You can do exactly the same thing that this video shows by using Gravitation 3D.  You can also see a similar effect if you look at the orbit of Cassini in Celestia.  It isn't wrong, it's just looking at celestial motions from a different frame of reference. 

Saying that the heliocentric model is wrong though is indeed stupid, I give Phil that.  And he's also correct about the orientation of the solar system with respect to the galactic plane, and the sun's actual path through the galaxy.  But those are details that I don't think detract from what the video is trying to show -- the helical motion of planets with respect to the galaxy.

I'm no defender of Phil, but his rant is spot on. It's not as if this guy just wanted to make a cool video. He wanted to make a scienfitic point, and his science is so ****ing wrong it's not even funny. The worst part is because he's so gifted at graphics and made a video so appealing and beautiful, many will believe him right off the bat.... although perhaps that's not that bad. Idiots are a dozen.

[watsisname]

*shrug*  I guess I didn't see it as trying to make a scientific point.  I saw it as a demonstration of "circular motion in two dimensions becomes helical in three".  (Cool, but also "duh".)  If it's seen as an affront against the heliocentric model of the solar system, or supposed to be a correct treatment of the sun's path around the galaxy, then yes, it's very wrong.

[headdie]

try this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws

[redsniper]

I didn't realize the sun oscillated up and down through the galactic plane. That's neat.

[Kopachris]

try this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws

The link The E posted goes into detail about that one, too.

[Dragon]

I didn't realize the sun oscillated up and down through the galactic plane. That's neat.

That part is one of the few things more or less correct in the vid (though he gets the frequency wrong). All this looks like somebody who's not good with physics thinking he understood how the sun actually moves. It looks to me that he's trying to use simplified, "popular science" explanations like actual science. That reminds me of proving 1=0 by abusing rounding definitions.

Also, the argument that heliocentrism is wrong is a funny case. Putting aside bad science, he seems to be equating "wrong" with "noninertial". The "correct" (i.e. actually inertial) system (using that definition of "wrong") would take the universe itself as a reference frame. Calculating the motion of a thrown ball in such reference frame would yield a mindboggingly complex equation. Once again, too many oversimplifications lead to a wrong conclusion. Noninertial frames are perfectly valid and usable (indeed, this perfect inertial one is pretty much useless because of it's complexity). Eg. when considering a ball on Earth, it's perfectly safe to assume a geocentric reference frame is an inertial one, because influences from the moon, sun, galaxy and all that are pretty much meaningless. Aside from a very bad case of OCD, I see no reason to include them in such a case. Choosing a correct reference frame can greatly simplify complex problems, and there's no frame that is "wrong".

[karajorma]

I think Phil Plait went way too ape**** over this.  Looking at the video, the planets are not trailing the sun.  They're all effectively in the same plane.  It's the ghost trails that lag it, and those are there just to show the motion.  (Or maybe my eyes just fail me).

Your eyes are failing you. It's quite hard to spot in the video but if you look at the section (0:56) where we see the sun side on and you can clearly see that the planets are all behind the sun. You could draw a line through them and it would not go through the centre of the sun. This is quite obviously wrong.

[bobbtmann]

Yeah, those planets are definitely trailing the sun.



 Could you imagine that? The northern hemisphere of earth would get all the sun, all the time. In practice, it would be the same as being tidally locked. I'm pretty sure that would be lethal to us.

[watsisname]

Wow, you're absolutely right.  Thanks for the correction.

[Nuke]

the thing i see wrong is that the sun's velocity vector is aligned with the normal of the ecliptic plane. i somehow doubt this actually happens.

[The E]

Well. I learned one thing: The plane that the solar system orbits on is at a 60 degree angle to the galactic plane, as opposed to parallel as I always assumed. Neat.

[Luis Dias]

The thing that is a real downer is that the author could have used his otherwise good talent to make a very realistic account of what actually happens. And then he doesn't, he depicts a completely ridiculous alternative, derides "heliocentrism" and goes on about how we should revolutionize our way of thinking. It's this assymetry between awesomeness and terribadness that captured some attention in the webs.

[BloodEagle]

Correct me if I am wrong, here, but he did do that.  He explained what was wrong, and why it was wrong, and what it actually was.

::EDIT::

Oh wait, I got the people mixed up. My bad.