Have we all been lied to in our educations, or just not taught the whole truth? Watch this video that explains the true nature of our solar system and how it moves through our galaxy.

Even Albert Einstein realized that the 2 dimensional solar system model fell short of a complete mathematical proof. New discoveries showing the possibility of matter changing into wave form and moving from dimension to dimension spur on new thought of this non heliocentric multi dimensional time multi dimensional space possibilities.

Interpreting quantum mechanics(QM) by classical physics seems like an old topic; And unified theory is in physics frontier; But because the principles of quantum physics and relativity are so different, any theories of trying to unify 4 nature forces should not be considered as completed without truly unifying the basic principles between QM and relativity. This paper will interpret quantum physics by using two extra dimensional time as quantum hidden variables. I'll show that three dimensional time is a bridge to connect basics quantum physics, relativity and string theory. ``Quantum potential'' in Bohm's quantum hidden variable theory is derived from Einstein Lagrangian in 6-dimensional time-space geometry. Statistical effect in the measurement of single particle, non-local properties, de Broglie wave can be naturally derived from the natural properties of three dimensional time. Berry phase, double-slit interference of single particle, uncertainty relation, wave-packet collapse are discussed. The spin and g factor are derived from geometry of extra two time dimensions. Electron can be expressed as time monopole. In the last part of this paper, I'll discuss the relation between three dimensional time and unified theory.

Gravity attracts. But only the electric force can repulse huge masses in jets, solar wind, eruptions. It also forms matter to filaments. Filaments and jets are in the fifth state of matter which can be by orders more energetic than plasma.

The model Electric Universe is a totally new and contradiction-free astrophysics. In plasma-stars the heat motion pushes the light electrons faster outwards than inwards. The much slower ions remain in and near the core. The photon-pressure and the neutrinos also make the core positive and the surface negative.






videos here

http://coupmedia.org/astro-physics/earth-does-not-orbit-the-sun-2707


seems like something to think about, so far it makes sense...

This seems like a topic for Metalwing to give input on. I stopped studying this form of physics decades ago, and most of my sources are outdated, including the articles on string theory which I reread just to refresh my memory.

Astro-physics seems to have progressed quite a bit since the Hubble Telescope was first used, and that happened right about the time when I stopped reading up cosmic science.

I don't know much about it myself, but it seems like it could be something to think about... i never thought of it other than a flat, saucer-like orbits, and this came at me from nowhere... the name on the link was "Earth does not orbit the sun", i just clicked on to get a laugh at someones stupidity, but after i watched the video, my mind changed right away...

but i'm still not quite sure how this works, but i'm thinking that is because i've always considered it as a flat orbit, not a spiral....

I thought that the galaxies were moving and expanding with the universe. If so, wouldn't that mean the sun is actually moving as well? And the planets would be moving with the sun, no?

yes, i would say that... and we are at the edge of the milky way, spinning around it as well... the way ii see it, the universe is expanding, so that takes the milky way with it, as it bulls through the universe. The milky way is also spinning, as it is a spiral galaxy, and we are spinning with it. so it would be hard to relate positions and speed with all the movement going on.

What is confusing for so many people is the sheer enormity of the universe, as Carl Sagan might say. Just the size alone causes us to tend to think of space two-dimensionally rather than three-dimensionally.

Planetary orbits have long been known to be three-dimensional. The orbit is not always on a singular plane because there is some erratic movement that tends to come in cycles, such as those pointed out in the Milankovitch theory.

As far as this spiraling orbit, it makes some sense to me because so long as the universe expands and contracts, there can be no such thing as a static orbit. Furthermore, a spiraling orbit, when measured, would give an elliptical appearance. We have already determined that the Earth's orbit is elliptical, so this seems to fit. With our modern telescopes, we should be able to calculate and monitor movement in relation to other stars. So the claim that our solar system moves 2,000 - 3,000 miles further each year should actually be measurable, or at the very least estimable enough to verify the validity of the claim.

As I think about it right now, my mind is considering how such an orbit would affect other space objects in relation to the planets. Even though it is mere speculation, I can now see how this might cause some objects to collide with planets or even to miss planets based on their own spiraling orbit. Perhaps they could track a comet to see how its orbit is affected, and then plot a long-term projection to see how close it will come in any specific pass?

Yep. The sun on on the move.

We are following it. It drags us with it. It is headed to the lighter side of the galaxy.

I didn't know that this was anything new. The video is a little dramatic in scale and should show a 360 view as the movement is happening to paint a more accurate look but the basics are correct. Was it thought that we were standing still?

i always thought of it as more of a circular motion, like it was attached with a sting, not in a spiral, like going down a drain... i never heard of this before...

Yep, our 2D persecutions used in teaching can get pretty shallow. I have to deal with 2D thinking engineers all the time.

Yes, its actually a new concept to me. But it makes sense. I always thought the sun was moving but more like a frizbee with planets going around in a circular direction. I always wondered how that was possible because it didn't make much sense.

This model makes a lot of sense.

It sort of makes you feel a bit vulnerable. A bunch of moving balls swirling through another bunch of spinning stuff. WoW.

I feel so small.

Yep, if the setup was like what we see in school books the universe would have cracks in space. It wouldn't be "space". The easier way to think about it is in terms of spherical 360 patterns.

this is hardly a theory. an hypothesis at best but more a postulate.

Well, enlighten us with your theory then.

didn't say i had a theory. just don't consider this as meeting the standard of what science considers to be a theory.

'a good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. if the predictions agrees with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct.'

stephen hawking, the universe in a nutshell. no, i don't have a damn internet link. had to type directly from the friggin' book.

Well not much has really actually changed except how we understand it. The earth still appears to rotate around the sun from our point of view.

However, the sun is moving forward. It is pulling the planets with it as they rotate around it.

Depending on how fast the sun is moving and how tight the planets orbits are, the sun may be leading the pack in its journey through the galaxy, and the planets are behind it moving in a spiral.

This makes a lot more sense than the idea that the sun is moving and the planets are locked in a fixed single dimensional plane orbiting around it. That would require that the sun be pushing them ahead of it towards the ecliptic plane of the galaxy rather than leading the way.

The question I would ask is this. What kind of energy would have to be present to lock a solar system in such a fixed position that the sun could push the planets forward as well as pull them along with it? I don't think that is possible.

It makes more sense that the planets would follow the sun in a spiral. The spiral does not have to be exaggerated. Only slightly enough that the sun leads and the planets follow.

3,000 miles per year is a slow rate of movement. It is little more than 1/3 mph. Given the supposed age of the Milky Way, this is neither surprising nor unreasonable. Gravity and magnetism are cousins of each other, and as some scientists have proposed, may have a yin-yang relationship.

To throw out another idea, gravity is related to mass. Is the total mass of planets and asteroids within the solar system greater than that of the Sun? If so, then could it be that the Sun is following the planets rather than vice versa? Most scientists agree that the Sun formed before the planets, drawing matter into the solar system. This does not mean that such matter was not following a three-dimensional vector, nor does it mean that matter lost all momentum once an orbit was established. The Sun may also have had its own vector of movement which could have been modified by the forces of other masses already in motion.

Just a thought.

Seeing how speed is relative how can anyone determine how fast the sun is moving? The Galaxy itself is also moving, so the sun is moving in relation to what?

I doubt that the sun is following the planets.

no no no no no jeanie. a body orbits a larger mass because of the gravity the larger mass exerts on the body. the sun's gravity is 'pushing' nothing. something in orbit is simply falling toward the mass that it orbits. at the correct speed for a given orbital track, it keeps falling and keeps missing. at a slower speed it will descend to a lower orbit. at a higher speed it will climb to a higher orbit. with enough speed it will escape the orbit altogether but the large mass is always pulling on the orbiter, never pushing it.