# The heliocentric model and mph

So, I have a question. When I present this question, please note that I am not trying to stump or debunk any one thing. This is an honest and genuine question. But, before I pose said question I want to point out some variables that reference the reason why this question is even brought up. We known that the sun travels through space at roughly 483,000 miles per hour as it rotates around the Milky Way with the black hole as the center of its orbit. With that said, the earth travels around the sun in the same manor at roughly 67,000 miles per hour while at the same time spinning on an axis at roughly 1,000 miles per hour. When you think of space as a vacuum while adding all of these numbers together, the earth covers a brand new point within the void at roughly 551,000 mph. Obviously, these miles are not in a straight line and cover three different directions. But, in essence, the earth has three motions. Forward, around, and spin. The accumulated space that earth would transverse in a given hour across the vacuum would be 551,000 miles. To illustrate what I am talking about here is a short video of the heliocentric model in a vortex. Obviously, there are some flaws with the vortex theory, but it gives a clear visual framework for the three existing motions. Forward would be around the Milky Way. Rotation would be around the sun. And spin would be its daily axis.

So, in a nutshell, we are moving through space pretty freaking fast. Which leads me to something odd. The Polaris Star is the North Star. When you actually do a time laps with your camera it will show a perfect circle wrapping around that central point in the sky. Here is a video of what I am talking about.

Now, let’s assume that your time laps of this spiral is for only an 8 hour period. If this were the case, that would mean that the earth would have traveled across a total of 4,408,000 square miles of space in that period of time. Some of this traveled distance would be forward motion, spiral motion, and orbital motion.

With that in mind I have a series of questions that essentially boil down to one question. How is it that we can be moving in three different directions but still have a fixed position in space like the Polaris? One argument is that the Polaris Star is 400 light years away and is traveling with us at the same speed in the same direction. Okay, if that is the case, this only alleviates one of the three variables. With the forward motion removed because Polaris is moving forward with us that still leaves 544,000 miles that the earth would have rotated and spun within only 8 hours. How is it then that we can still have that fixed position if that much motion is taking place in two different directions? Two directions of motion would not create an exact circle.

Now, here is another thought along those same lines. We have recorded the same constellations in the sky for nearly 4,000 years. With forward motion, rotation, and spin, considered that is a total of 8,044,600,000 miles of space covered (assuming I am not doing the math wrong). And in that time, with that much distance, nothing has drastically changed in the night sky. Same constellations. Same North Star. Same central point in the night sky. If the Polaris star is lateral to us in parallel rotation with the Milky Way, what we see still does not add up.

So, here is the question. How has our night sky been in a fixed state for so long with this much motion taking place every hour, year, decade, and so on? And if the generic answer is distance in the perspective of light years, then I am still not buying it. Because at that point you still have to account for spin and rotation while only alleviating forward motion with that explanation.

Does someone have it figured out? Show me on paper how two curved motions (spin and rotation) would equal a straight line. What I am seeing in the night sky does not match what I have been taught.

## 9 thoughts on “The heliocentric model and mph”

1. If you consider that the distance of earth and sun is roughly 150 million kilometers (1 AU) and distance to Polaris is 430 light years (27 400 000 AU), the orbit of earth around sun doesn’t really affect things at all. To put things on scale, imagine a bright light at distance of 27 400 kilometers (width of USA for example is 4300km, so that would be a bit over 6 USAs lined next to each other). Then take two steps left and then two steps back to right. That’s about how much earth’s orbit around the sun is compared to the distance to Polaris.

Earth spinning around the axis is exactly what we’re seeing in time lapse videos. It just happens that (currently) axis of earth is pointed towards Polaris. Due to precession of earth’s axis this hasn’t always been case. If one were to dig into old manuscripts about stars, there most likely would be references to different star being near the pole (or mention of celestial pole being devoid of stars as seems to be case with Pytheas of Massalia.

But yeah, we’re moving through space pretty freaking fast and in quite complicated pattern (even more complicated if you want to take movement of galaxies into account). The video is pretty neat visualization about this.

Like

• Your remarks are valid in regard to size and distance. However, I address this in the post. Distance as the answer only removed one of three motions. What about the other two

Like

• Also please note I am not saying you are wrong. I am just saying “distance and size is a generic cop~out style answer. Show me. I want to see a diagram of these three motions relative to the Straight line.

Like

• You could test what happens when you have a camera on a surface of spinning sphere and that camera is pointed to an object that is placed in the imaginary line extending through axis of spin. The object will stay in the center of view of the camera. If there’s a stationary object next to the our target, that second object will appear to circle around.

Moreover, in the grand scale of things, if our model target is at distance of 27 400km, our model Earth has orbit of 2m (over a course of year, so considerably less during single night), the spin of camera on surface of model earth is 0.0425875 mm (about width of hair).

I wanted to do a scale drawing of this, but it would really be just a straight line with Earth in one end and Polaris in other end. But I can try and make one which isn’t to scale.

Like

2. that’s the issue. Until someone can actually visually show for it, all I am hearing is “it’s so far away it doesn’t matter”. Show me.

Like

• So, here’s a quick pencil doodle: http://imgur.com/mInKhnw that is based on our model system. Sun is on the left, earth on the right. Polaris somewhere on top of the page. Distance to Polaris is still 27 400km, earth’s distance from sun is 0,0001km (1m) and earth’s radius is 0,0000004km (0.04mm).

During 8h exposure, earth will orbit around sun roughly (360/365)/(24/8) degrees, in other words 0,3 degrees (beta). There you can solve with basic trigonometry that it travels roughly 0,000005km (0,5mm). At the same time, camera is spinning around center of earth. Since earth makes one full revolution roughly every 24h, the camera will be spinning 1/3 of it, which is 122 degrees (alpha). If you solve how much this actually is, you get 0,0000002km (0,02mm) and 0,0000003km (0,03mm) along different axis (marked thick line and letters CP). So all in all, the earth is moving about 0,000005km (0,5mm) during that 8 hour exposure (that’s couple very thick hairs), while Polaris is 27 400km away.

Instead of pointing camera directly along the axis of earth, you need to tilt it roughly 0,00000001 degrees away from the axis (provided you’re on equator. The closer you’re the north pole, the less the tilt needs to be). You can visualize this yourself by first drawing a one degree angle and then dividing that to 10000000 equally sized angles. There’s your visualization you’re after.

So while the camera on surface of the earth is doing spiraling motion, the amount of movement is really so small that it doesn’t matter: couple thick hairs compared to 6 USAs lined next to each other.

Like

3. polaris is in line with the north pole which means that your diagram is wrong. I would look more like this. And would mean that while the earth went around the sun, polaris would come in and out of central orbit above the pole. explain that?

my line is drawn directly over the pole that you had draw which would be the tilting point. As the earth went around the sun the line would stay, moving away from the star, eventually re-aligning as it came back around. In order for your explanation to work, earth’s axis would have to pivot toward polasis as is went around the sun, constantly correcting its trajectory. Your diagram only visually accounts for two motions. Forward through the Milky Way, and rotational axis. When orbit is added, your lines would not stay converged.

Liked by 1 person

• You’re correct that the diagram doesn’t show the 23.5 degree tilt of the earth. If the tilt were included in the calculations, the apparent movement of Polaris would be even less. I can do the slightly more calculations for that case too, but you ought first try dividing that one degree angle to 10000000 equally large angles to get the idea about the scale. Can even compare that to the new angle and see the difference it makes.

Like