Facebook & Twitter

To follow BoreMe on Facebook, click 'Like'

To follow BoreMe on Twitter, click 'twitter'

Follow BoreMe on Twitter
Tags

CosmosEarthMiscellaneousPlanetsScienceScientific TheoriesSolar SystemSpaceSunAstronomyScience & Technology

Know something about this post? Email us

Report fault

<< Back to listing

Earth is not orbiting the Sun as we are taughtEarth is not orbiting the Sun as we are taught

(5:57) Swiss-born self-taught scientist Nassim Haramein is a controversial figure in the scientific community. Here he explains why the Earth and other planets do not orbit the Sun as we are taught, rather they are dragged by the Sun in a spiral pattern.

You are welcome to
comment as a guest,
but registering gives you
added benefits

Add your comment

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest: Guest31 (769 days ago)
For those who comment: Yes, he tells the more complex model of our solar system, that you all seem to know about, but some "children" do not know or understand it. Let them learn; this video is quite easy to understand the complexity
Original comment
For those who comment: Yes, he tells the more complex model of our solar system, that you all seem to know about, but some "children" do not know or understand it. Let them learn; this video is quite easy to understand the complexity
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest:  (766 days ago)
I'm pretty sure the solar system's not traveling in a direction conveniently perpendicular to its plane. I don't see the use in this model - swapping inertial frames only makes the maths harder and isn't useful.
Original comment
I'm pretty sure the solar system's not traveling in a direction conveniently perpendicular to its plane. I don't see the use in this model - swapping inertial frames only makes the maths harder and isn't useful.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest:  (769 days ago)
That'll be classic relativity then. Duh.
Original comment
That'll be classic relativity then. Duh.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest: Tiny Tim (769 days ago)
This' guy's quite right regarding the movement of the objects within our solar system. But, our Solar system is part of a galaxy, and that galaxy is part of a galactic cluster. So why hasn't he added those movements to his example. He's moved on from saying the Earth is not flat, but only goes on to say that there is an atmosphere which means the Earth is flat and thick.
Original comment
This' guy's quite right regarding the movement of the objects within our solar system. But, our Solar system is part of a galaxy, and that galaxy is part of a galactic cluster. So why hasn't he added those movements to his example. He's moved on from saying the Earth is not flat, but only goes on to say that there is an atmosphere which means the Earth is flat and thick.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest:  (757 days ago)
Latest comment: Couldn't take anything he said seriously with that music. Had to do a little research into the credibility of this man. Turns out he is not exactly "a controversial figure in the scientific community" rather than a new age hippie who misunderstands basic physics. Pointless... LINK
Original comment
Latest comment: Couldn't take anything he said seriously with that music. Had to do a little research into the credibility of this man. Turns out he is not exactly "a controversial figure in the scientific community" rather than a new age hippie who misunderstands basic physics. Pointless... LINK
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



glortman glortman (769 days ago)
Well Nassim is both right and wrong. Relative motion and trajectories are based on the viewpoint of the observer. When you are walking from one side of a moving train to the other, to an external observer you are moving at a tangent to the direction of the train and to the earth. To someone on the train, you are just moving across the train. So he is defining his viewpoint as being someone outside of our solar system. Personally, I live on earth, which is within the solar system. I can understand the spiral trajectory, but outside of my imagination and such videos, it is not possible for me to see it.
ReplyVote up (2)down (6)Spam?
Original comment
Well Nassim is both right and wrong. Relative motion and trajectories are based on the viewpoint of the observer. When you are walking from one side of a moving train to the other, to an external observer you are moving at a tangent to the direction of the train and to the earth. To someone on the train, you are just moving across the train. So he is defining his viewpoint as being someone outside of our solar system. Personally, I live on earth, which is within the solar system. I can understand the spiral trajectory, but outside of my imagination and such videos, it is not possible for me to see it.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest:  (769 days ago)
Twaddle
Original comment
Twaddle
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest: placid flamingo (769 days ago)
Hmmmm he's trying to add some spirituality to things (which isn't needed) but yes, the 2D model is a very simplified model, and it needs to be for children to learn, let them come to an understanding of one principle and then move onto the next! But don't try and say..wait a minute....this is wrong!....it's not absolutely correct but at this point, the kids might be a bit young to handle the higher principles of cosmological physics
Original comment
Hmmmm he's trying to add some spirituality to things (which isn't needed) but yes, the 2D model is a very simplified model, and it needs to be for children to learn, let them come to an understanding of one principle and then move onto the next! But don't try and say..wait a minute....this is wrong!....it's not absolutely correct but at this point, the kids might be a bit young to handle the higher principles of cosmological physics
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest: guest (769 days ago)
We teach this just as a simplified way to children. Yes you are correct, but if you factor in all the trajectories then the model becomes confusing (sun, milky way, universe) This is the view held by the scientific community....
Original comment
We teach this just as a simplified way to children. Yes you are correct, but if you factor in all the trajectories then the model becomes confusing (sun, milky way, universe) This is the view held by the scientific community....
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest: Silly SpaceMan (770 days ago)
Wow - no duh, Nassim. Did you really grow up thinking that the universe was a static picture on a piece of paper (with our Sun conveniently set right in the middle)? And have you expanded your graphics to show the Milky Way's journey through the universe, 'cause that could be a really big video, ya know?
Original comment
Wow - no duh, Nassim. Did you really grow up thinking that the universe was a static picture on a piece of paper (with our Sun conveniently set right in the middle)? And have you expanded your graphics to show the Milky Way's journey through the universe, 'cause that could be a really big video, ya know?
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest: Kamikaze (769 days ago)
The "flat" model is a simplification. Aside from a few minor variations of practical importance only to astrophysicists, the diference betwee the flat model and the "real" one is the same as the difference between the chicken crossing the road and the road crossing the chicken: frame of reference.
Original comment
The "flat" model is a simplification. Aside from a few minor variations of practical importance only to astrophysicists, the diference betwee the flat model and the "real" one is the same as the difference between the chicken crossing the road and the road crossing the chicken: frame of reference.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest: Capt. Obvious (770 days ago)
this should be obvious ? the planets do not have circular trajectories just look at the JPL diagrams
Original comment
this should be obvious ? the planets do not have circular trajectories just look at the JPL diagrams
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


Crowd Ignite  (opens in new window)
Related Posts