the Motion of Matter

[Michael V]

webolife,

(and hopefully sjw will join in too and all others are welcome - the more the merrier.)

Just to be clear, Michael, do you consider then that gravitation is energy? or that it is force? is it the potential to do work? are potential energy and force equivalent physical phenomena? Or are we using "energy" and "force" interchangeably depending on the convention of a particular situation? Is it possible to physically distinguish the two concepts apart from their separate use in mathematical formulae? For you, is momentum the same as force? or energy? or? Again I'm wondering how you conceptually distinguish these physical phenomena, not how they might be used to express different mathematical terms... or is that possible?

do you consider then that gravitation is energy?
or that it is force?
is it the potential to do work?
are potential energy and force equivalent physical phenomena?

This is the abridged explanation of my theory of the universe:

The absurd fiction of action-at-a-distance makes the existence of an aethereal particle field a logical imperative. By deductive reasoning I conclude that the field must be in continuous random motion. By a study of gyroscopic behaviour I have further concluded that spinning objects will precess about a pivot point and that the pivot point of choice is always the greatest point of force acting on that spinning object at any given instant (and I do mean instant!).

How so ever you choose to describe, construct or populate the aethereal field, there can be no doubt that such a property of space exists. The absurd impossibility of action-at-a-distance demands an aethereal field. If you are a mathematician you may describe such a field as a "quantum vacuum" and populate it with virtual particles that pop into and out of existence as and when the equational need arises. (Although, there is no "quantum" in the field, the quantum belongs to matter.) Regardless of the theoretical description of the "interactional mediation field", it will always retain a rather awkward problem: How does matter move through the aethereal field?

My assertion is that electrons and protons are spinning objects. Placed in a moving aethereal field, they are effectively always moving relative to the field. In moving through the field an object such as a spinning electron will experience "harder" collisions at its forward most point. This point is therefore the point of greatest force and so becomes a pivot point about which a spinning electron will be compelled to precess. As soon as the electron begins to precess, the pivot point changes and so precession continues about a continually changing point. The electron will therefore move in a circular curve and as the electron travels it will describe a helical trajectory. I refer to this process as Helical Precession. The helix has three descriptors: arc length - the distance along a complete turn of the helix,
pitch length - the distance between complete turns, curvature - the radius of curvature.

The velocity of the electron along its precessional helix is c. The de Broglie formula with a velocity of c for an electron gives the Compton wavelength, which is the pitch length of the helix. de Broglie "waves" are helical; a helix not a sine wave. The radius of curvature is the classical electron "charge" radius. The energy of an electron along one complete arc length is h, Plancks constant - the quantum of energy - the smallest detectable motion of matter. The range of motion of the electron can be described as the circular curvature of the helix and the wavelength of the helix. The ratio of curvature to wavelength is the electromagnetic coupling constant, alpha, also called the fine structure constant.

To maintain its spin, the electron must take/receive momentum (or energy if you prefer) from the constant collisions of the aethereal field. This means that there is more field momentum toward the electron than away from the electron. This reduction in outward momentum is called mass and the excess of inward momentum leads to gravity.

As the electron moves through the field along its precessional helix, some of the momentum gained through spin is returned to the field, by collision, as charge. Since the electron is moving along a helix the charge momentum that is "emanating" away from the electron has a helical geometry : the electron is constantly returning momentum/energy to the field as helical charge photons. From a completely random field the electron is continually helically precessing in different directions, so that it emits/radiates charge photons spherically as an "electrostatic field".

When two objects approach they present to each other a reduction in field momentum density to the other object, so that the field momentum is greatest from the opposite side of each particle, which has the effect of pushing them together: gravity. But, and this is a truly important point, the accelerative "force" the object experiences is not due to the imbalance of field momentum. The point of force, becomes an additional pivot point about which the object precesses. The electron/proton is still being constantly bombarded by the field, so that it has spin, mass helical precession and charge, but now there is an additional pivot point. The electron must still maintain its inherent helical precession, but now it starts an secondary precessional helix. The motive force comes from the field via spin and helical precession, but now that translates into "linear" travel. However, "linear" travel is not rectilinear it is helical. Matter does not and can not move rectilinearly. Matter can only move helically, matter moves by de Broglie waves.


The only motive force of matter is that of its inherent helical precession. All causal forces: gravity, charge, collision, are merely forces of influence that become pivoting forces leading to secondary precession helices that we recognise as linear travel. Of course, it is not possible to travel with a secondary precessional velocity that is greater than the inherent precessional velocity: nothing can have a "linear" velocity greater than c.

Matter de Broglie waves are claimed to have a wavelength that is too small to see, but that the truth is the complete opposite. The given de Broglie uses h, but h only applies to single electrons and protons. For composite masses, which by definition are moving by a secondary helix, the energy per cycle, in Joules seconds, is much larger.


This post is getting quite long and it may be as well to read my recent paper: On the Motion of Matter:
here:
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4286
and here:
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?t ... ay&id=6814

More posts to follow.

Michael

[Goldminer]

Einstein postulated and so have you. The definition of a postulate is: 1.to ask, demand, or claim.

2.to claim or assume the existence or truth of, especially as a basis for reasoning or arguing.

3.to assume without proof, or as self-evident; take for granted.

4.Mathematics, Logic . to assume as a postulate.

7.logic, maths an unproved and indemonstrable statement that should be taken for granted: used as an initial premise or underlying hypothesis in a process of reasoning

In other words a postulate is just your opinion.

You have pointed out very interesting aspects of the gyroscope. What you overlooked is that a gyroscope not subject to any force does maintain its orientation in space. If you waited long enough with a frictionless gyroscope not under the force of gravity, or any other force, it would maintain its position in space along its rotation axis forever. The entire universe would seen to rotate around it. It would trace a rectilinear path with whatever impetus it was given along its rotating axis. The rifling in a gun provides the gyro motion to a bullet which then does travel in a straight line, except for the force of gravity accelerating it to the Earth (and the force of friction slowing it down).

Watch out for circular reasoning, it is the hidden way Einstein covers his contradictions.

[Michael V]

Because matter must move and travel by helical trajectories, then motion is at right-angles to travel. We may ask Ambrose Fleming or a reflective surface the significance of this particular feature of nature. So for example, gravity does not act in a straight line between mass centres, it acts along a helical curve between objects that are already travelling along helical trajectories. Not only does gravity not act in a straight line between mass centres, but also it does not and cannot act instantaneously. The entire notion of instantaneous action, or even near instantaneous action, is a method of avoiding mechanical analysis.

There are many important consequences of realising that motive force resides with matter. The need to fabricate ever more complex methods by which force/energy/momentum is projected, is immediately alleviated. Force mediation particles such as those touted by quantum mechanics cannot possibly carry the force that they were invented to carry.

Projected force is an illusion. Transmission of energy is an illusion.


For example, there is no force in a magnetic field. Place a sheet of tissue paper between 2 strong magnets, there is no force to affect the tissue paper. You might say, "of course not, the tissue paper is not magnetic".
So either:
- the force is there, but only accessible to objects with a particular physical arrangement
or
- the force resides at each and every particle already, requiring only a subtle signal to alter a particles operational behaviour

In the case of gravity, that subtle signal is created by the proximity of two objects with mass. That is, two objects with a net inward field momentum, because the outward field momentum is reduced by a loss of momentum to the particle's spin. So the gravity "signal" is effectively a net drift of the local field.

The charge "signal" is transmitted by charge photons, and those photons have a helical geometry:
"Helices can be either right-handed or left-handed. With the line of sight along the helix's axis, if a clockwise screwing motion the helix away from the observer, then it is called a right-handed helix; if towards the observer then it is a left-handed helix. Handedness (or chirality) is a property of the helix, not of the perspective: a right-handed helix cannot be turned or flipped to look like a left-handed one unless it is viewed in a mirror, and vice versa."
The significance of chirality will not be lost on many visitors and contributors to these forums. Electrons and protons have different helices and so different charge photon helices, which we may arbitrarily label as positive and negative, or in a magnet, as north and south. The observed effect is that influence from a "same" helix causes a particle to align such that it proceeds along a secondary helix in the opposite direction: same-same = "repulsion", and the opposite occurs for "attraction". The particles are not repulsed or attracted by one another. They are simply influenced by the tiny photon force to pivot into a secondary precessional helix. So they either move off in opposite directions or towards each other.
Just to continually repeat the message: the charge photons carry no significant force or energy. The force and energy rests permanently with the electron or proton via their inherent helical precession.

An electron moving by inherent helical precession and travelling by a secondary precessional helix (i.e. linear travel), may, by interaction with other objects, be force to alter its linear travel. In doing so it must lose the momentum vectors associated with that linear travel, i.e. it must accelerate/decelerate. In the process of this manoeuvre its photon "emission" (i.e. radiated momentum) is a function of the ratio of its "linear" velocity and its inherent precessional velocity. In other words it "emits" a frequency photon, aka light photon. Charge photons have a frequency of 1, but we are not evolved to "see" those, but we are evolved to "see" a certain set of frequencies. The electrons in our eyes react to the incoming frequency photons and generate electrical signals, so that our brains/visual-cortex can "see" "light". The light is of course, only in our brain.

Matter does not float freely through empty space, it has to work its way through the field by moving at right-angles to its direction of travel. As the Sun travels with respect to the galactic centre, Earth follows with it and in the process describes a helical path. Taking the "velocity" of the Sun to be 230,000m/s (a rough average of several quoted values), then the Earth is not orbiting round the Sun at 66,600mph, it is travelling along a helical arc at 3,232,600mph. All of which doesn't even begin to take into account the travel through space (and the aethereal field) of the galaxy, cluster, super cluster, etc.. The only difference between an apple falling from tree to ground and a satellite in orbit, is motion. The satellite has additional motion through space, an additional helical trajectory.

And for the wave theorists amongst us: there is no such thing as a sine wave. The reality of helical motion through the cosmos makes any attempt at sine wave motion definitionally into a helix. All waves, vibrations and oscillations are helical.

More posts to follow, but questions and discussion are invited.

Michael

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

You have pointed out very interesting aspects of the gyroscope. What you overlooked is that a gyroscope not subject to any force does maintain its orientation in space. If you waited long enough with a frictionless gyroscope not under the force of gravity, or any other force, it would maintain its position in space along its rotation axis forever. The entire universe would seen to rotate around it. It would trace a rectilinear path with whatever impetus it was given along its rotating axis. The rifling in a gun provides the gyro motion to a bullet which then does travel in a straight line, except for the force of gravity accelerating it to the Earth (and the force of friction slowing it down).

What you overlooked is that a gyroscope not subject to any force does maintain its orientation in space.

Indeed I have considered at great length this rather obvious line of reasoning. Where have you been in the universe that there is no "force"?. Are you suggesting that a gyro, or any object, travelling at 3.2 million miles per hour through the galaxy experiences no affect from that process. I assume that you are referring to gyros in orbit, either around Earth or around the Sun. Do you have any knowledge or experience of gyroscopes beyond Earth that are not or were not in orbit around the Earth or Sun?

The rifling in a gun provides the gyro motion to a bullet which then does travel in a straight line

A bullet fired from a gun does not travel in a straight line. For every second in flight, the bullet travels at least 1,500,000m through the galaxy along a helical trajectory. Any object dropped to the ground, WILL travel along a helical trajectory, and WILL travel at least 1500km for each second of flight. This is a simple fact requiring no interpretation.


I have asked you before, but you insisted that I go away a research for myself, what is "an inertial frame of reference"?. Think very carefully, before answering. What qualifies as an inertial frame and why?

Please do not construe my words or intentions as negative or adversarial, I am very keen for your properly considered opinion.

Michael

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

Incidentally, Einstein made several unproven postulates, not just two. The first was and most damaging was "the principle of relativity".

Michael

[Goldminer]

A

Goldminer,

You have pointed out very interesting aspects of the gyroscope. What you overlooked is that a gyroscope not subject to any force does maintain its orientation in space. If you waited long enough with a frictionless gyroscope not under the force of gravity, or any other force, it would maintain its position in space along its rotation axis forever. The entire universe would seen to rotate around it. It would trace a rectilinear path with whatever impetus it was given along its rotating axis. The rifling in a gun provides the gyro motion to a bullet which then does travel in a straight line, except for the force of gravity accelerating it to the Earth (and the force of friction slowing it down).

What you overlooked is that a gyroscope not subject to any force does maintain its orientation in space.

Where have you been in the universe that there is no "force". Are you suggesting that a gyro, or any object, travelling at 3.2 million miles per hour through the galaxy experiences no affect from that process. Indeed I have considered at great length this rather obvious line of reasoning. I know you are referring to gyros in orbit, either around Earth or around the Sun. Do you have any knowledge or experience of gyroscopes that are not or were not in orbit around the Sun?

The rifling in a gun provides the gyro motion to a bullet which then does travel in a straight line

A bullet fired from a gun does not travel in a straight line. For every second in flight, the bullet travels at least 1,500,000m through the galaxy along a helical trajectory. Any object dropped to the ground, WILL travel along a helical trajectory, and WILL travel at least 1500km for each second of flight. This is a simple fact requiring no interpretation.


I have asked you before, but you insisted that I go away a research for myself, what is "an inertial frame of reference"?. Think very carefully, before answering. What qualifies as an inertial frame and why?

Please do not construe my words or intentions as negative or adversarial, I am very keen for your properly considered opinion.

Michael

IMHO, inertia is supplied to matter by the aether, which also gives the expanding light sphere the impetus to remain centered upon the source which emitted it.

The bullet falls in a parabolic path, not helical. A spot painted on the side of a bullet traces a helical path, but the bullet travels rectilinearly. You can imagine the Universe twirling around it. So what?

An inertial object is one not subject to any acceleration. It is an imaginary construct. One can imagine a situation not subject to gravity. The further into empty space one travels, the less one is subject to gravitation. I bet'cha there are places in the Universe where all the gravitation vectors completely cancel.

If, as you insist in your opinion, everything is helical, how do what we see not become jumbled into swirls, instead of the nicely defined straight line vision to objects we observe?

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

Oh my dear fellow.

IMHO, inertia is supplied to matter by the aether,

OK. Atoms and molecules are held together by a complex set of interactive "force effects", which for simplicity's sake we will call forces. As an example, a 1kg of lump of iron is not really a single object, it is a composite object made up of many smaller objects: in the case of 1kg of iron there are a thousand trillion trillion separate matter particles per kilogram, that's 1027 objects all in motion together, held together by what ever forces you choose to theorise.
If you push the lump of iron you can only apply that collisional force to a small subset of the component parts, so that the push force applied must be conveyed to all the other trillions of components via the materials structural integrity, that is, the complex set of atomic/molecular forces that holds it together. Since all the component objects are in motion in some way or other, there is a lag before the push force vector can be conveyed to all component objects. This motional hysteresis is inertia.
Gravity acts directly upon each and every component particle separately and simultaneously, so that they are all accelerated simultaneously and at the same rate. So inertia is either absent or at least minimal.

Since gravity, charge and whatever other force effects one may wish to theorise on are a process of mediation by an aethereal field, then I suppose we could bypass the details and simply say "inertia is supplied to matter by the aether".

.... which also gives the expanding light sphere the impetus to remain centered upon the source which emitted it.

By what line of logic or reasoning you have come by this notion, I have no idea. We do not see the Sun where it is, we see it where it was when the photons were emitted. Each and every photon is centred on the particular coordinate point in 3 dimensional cosmic space that it was emitted from. The location of the emitting electron, i.e. the source, is of no consequence and will certainly not coincide with the point of emission. Your suggestion than aethereal light photons have aethereally conveyed inertia does not seem to fit with any line of reasoning. Please give some additional detail as to how you might have come to this peculiar conclusion.

The bullet falls in a parabolic path, not helical. A spot painted on the side of a bullet traces a helical path, but the bullet travels rectilinearly.

Even without thinking further afield we could take the Sun as a reference point and see that in a second worth of flight the bullet has travelled nearly 450m due the the axial rotation of the Earth. Even if we take the Sun as a stationary object, we can see that after 1 second, the 3 dimensional coordinate point in Solar space at which the bullet was fired is 18.5 miles back down the Earth's orbital path. If we also include that the Sun is travelling with respect to the galactic centre, then after 1 second, the point at which the bullet was fired is 900miles out into space. With respect to the Sun or the galactic centre, the bullet does not "fall in a parabolic path". The parabolic path is just a tiny part of the complex cosmic motion of the bullet. I'm sorry mate, but you do seem to be living on a flat Earth in a stationary universe.

It is not the case that we should simply "consider" everything to be in motion, everything actually is in motion. The Earth and everything on the Earth is moving along a helical trajectory with and around the Sun. Furthermore, the Sun "oscillates" above and below the galactic plane. The Sun moves around the galaxy with a helical trajectory with a wavelength of 4.718x1020m and a radius of curvature of 2.219x1018m. The lack of apparent visual "swirling" is in part due to the 65 million year wavelength period, or for Earth, a 1 year wavelength period.

An inertial object is one not subject to any acceleration. It is an imaginary construct. One can imagine a situation not subject to gravity. The further into empty space one travels, the less one is subject to gravitation. I bet'cha there are places in the Universe where all the gravitation vectors completely cancel.

All matter is at all times moving helically. Velocity vectors are constantly changing, so all objects are permanently accelerating. An object not subject to acceleration would have to be imaginary.
Of course we may envisage a situation beyond gravitational influence, but only if there are less than two particles of matter present. Other factors, most obviously charge, may or may not be more influential that gravity. By far the most influential factor will be motion through, with and by the aethereal field.

If, as you insist in your opinion, everything is helical, how do what we see not become jumbled into swirls, instead of the nicely defined straight line vision to objects we observe?

Unless you are withholding information about your trans-dimensional past, you and everything else on Earth is from this universe. Life on Earth is evolved to use frequency photons as the basis of a spatial awareness and local navigation system. The incoming photonic image is captured by your evolved visual system and processed by your evolved image processing system.
As an example, the "image" coming through the lens of your eye and projected on to your retina is upside down, but your visual processing system, where the image is actual formed and examined, compensates. All sorts of visual anomalies are corrected for and observing motion is high on the list.
The Earth goes round the Sun, but you do not get dizzy or complain of visual disorientation. Matter de Broglie waves are helical with wavelengths so long as to be undetectable to Earth based observers.
Really, "nicely defined straight line vision". Either you are being deliberately obtuse or you need to sit down have a long hard think about how the universe really moves and works.
And we do not see "to" objects: "straight line vision to objects we observe", we see from objects. All vision and observation of any kind is definitionally historical. And I repeat, vision does not occur in the eye, it occurs in the brain.


Michael

[Sparky]

Michael quotes:

Taking the "velocity" of the Sun to be 230,000m/s (a rough average of several quoted values),

Of what value are these quoted values? What observations were used to calculate velocity?

Are you suggesting that a gyro, or any object, travelling at 3.2 million miles per hour through the galaxy experiences no affect from that process.

Let's say the "object" is our solar system. What effect is experienced by the matter within our system?? Indeed, what effect would be felt by the system as a whole?

[Michael V]

Sparky,

Michael V: Taking the "velocity" of the Sun to be 230,000m/s (a rough average of several quoted values),

Sparky: Of what value are these quoted values? What observations were used to calculate velocity?

The given values given for the Sun's progress with respect to the galactic centre are in the range of 215-250km/s; google told me so. But what exactly are you asking?

Michael V: Are you suggesting that a gyro, or any object, travelling at 3.2 million miles per hour through the galaxy experiences no affect from that process.

Sparky: Let's say the "object" is our solar system. What effect is experienced by the matter within our system?? Indeed, what effect would be felt by the system as a whole?

The affect is that the planets must precess through a helical trajectory, which in turn allows them to orbit the Sun.

Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

.... which also gives the expanding light sphere the impetus to remain centered upon the source which emitted it.

By what line of logic or reasoning you have come by this notion, I have no idea. We do not see the Sun where it is, we see it where it was when the photons were emitted. Each and every photon is centred on the particular coordinate point in 3 dimensional cosmic space that it was emitted from. The location of the emitting electron, i.e. the source, is of no consequence and will certainly not coincide with the point of emission. Your suggestion than aethereal light photons have aethereally conveyed inertia does not seem to fit with any line of reasoning. Please give some additional detail as to how you might have come to this peculiar conclusion.

You are quite wrong on this as well. For your information, the Earth is in orbit around the Sun. The Earth's radius from the Sun is fairly constant, i.e somewhat elliptical. We basically see the sun right where it is, all the time; although a different ray is seen at every succeeding instant. Intercepting a new ray of light has nothing to do with the latency of the light. The source and the point of emission are the same thing. Light propagates away from the source at the speed of light. That makes the source the center of the sphere of expanding light. It is your line of reasoning that is quite flawed. The Sun is not falling behind or speeding ahead of the Earth. Every day it is right where it should be from experience of the past. Sheesh!

If you revisit the "Galilean Transform" that I used in the essay, and read what I wrote about it, you would understand that the source remains fixed to the source frame of reference origin. It is only a phantom reference in the "moving reference frame." The source does not remain fixed to the moving reference frame origin, only its phantom marks the spot where the emission took place. The source always remains (in the transverse sense) directly perpendicular to the moving observer, just as the series of "at rest with the source" observers detect the pulse of light rectilinearly.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

You are quite wrong on this as well. For your information, the Earth is in orbit around the Sun. The Earth's radius from the Sun is fairly constant, i.e somewhat elliptical. We basically see the sun right where it is, all the time; although a different ray is seen at every succeeding instant. Intercepting a new ray of light has nothing to do with the latency of the light. The source and the point of emission are the same thing. Light propagates away from the source at the speed of light. That makes the source the center of the sphere of expanding light. It is your line of reasoning that is quite flawed. The Sun is not falling behind or speeding ahead of the Earth. Every day it is right where it should be from experience of the past. Sheesh!

The average time of flight from Sun to Earth at c is estimated at 8 minutes and 17 seconds = 497 seconds
Estimated values for the Sun's speed of motion through the galaxy range from about 215-250km/s
For simplicity's sake, in the diagram I have ignored the Earth's orbital speed and I have exaggerated the positions of Sun and Earth over time for the sake of clarity.

In the 497 seconds in takes for the light signal to travel from where it was emitted to where Earth will be, the Sun will have moved in the order of 65-75,000 miles, well over 100,000km. (This of course also ignores the motion of the galaxy, cluster, super cluster and universe in general.)

The source and the point of emission are the same thing. Light propagates away from the source at the speed of light. That makes the source the center of the sphere of expanding light.

The light signal travels from its point of emission, in a straight rectilinear line, until it is intercepted. The electron that emitted the photon and the object that contains said electron, all of which we may refer to as "the source", will continue on its merry way through galactic and cosmic space. The photon will have no idea of, and carry no information regarding, the future position and exploits of the source - they are separated, with no shared inertial connection whatsoever. The speed and direction of the source object bears no relationship at all to that of the photon. I am at a loss to understand how or why you have developed this notion. Are you able to explain what logic or analysis of physical relationships has persuaded you into this line of reasoning?.

Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

You are quite wrong on this as well. For your information, the Earth is in orbit around the Sun. The Earth's radius from the Sun is fairly constant, i.e somewhat elliptical. We basically see the sun right where it is, all the time; although a different ray is seen at every succeeding instant. Intercepting a new ray of light has nothing to do with the latency of the light. The source and the point of emission are the same thing. Light propagates away from the source at the speed of light. That makes the source the center of the sphere of expanding light. It is your line of reasoning that is quite flawed. The Sun is not falling behind or speeding ahead of the Earth. Every day it is right where it should be from experience of the past. Sheesh!

Solar 1.jpg

The average time of flight from Sun to Earth at c is estimated at 8 minutes and 17 seconds = 497 seconds
Estimated values for the Sun's speed of motion through the galaxy range from about 215-250km/s
For simplicity's sake, in the diagram I have ignored the Earth's orbital speed and I have exaggerated the positions of Sun and Earth over time for the sake of clarity.

In the 497 seconds in takes for the light signal to travel from where it was emitted to where Earth will be, the Sun will have moved in the order of 65-75,000 miles, well over 100,000km. (This of course also ignores the motion of the galaxy, cluster, super cluster and universe in general.)

Sorry my friend, your first diagram is ill conceived. If what you diagram were true, the Sun and Earth would no longer orbit the barycenter, the primary focus of the ellipse. Either the Sun or Earth would leave. The system remains the system, any motion relative the system includes the whole system. The Earth and Moon are a system, they orbit the Sun as a system. They orbit their barycenter too. They all inherit the inertial motion of the system as it "moves" in relation to some other object or system. If the Sun moves 100,000 km through the Galaxy, so does the Earth, and the Moon.

In fact your, diagram defies your premiss that the Earth describes a helix as it orbits the Sun, as it orbits the galaxy!

The source and the point of emission are the same thing. Light propagates away from the source at the speed of light. That makes the source the center of the sphere of expanding light.

The light signal travels from its point of emission, in a straight rectilinear line, until it is intercepted. The electron that emitted the photon and the object that contains said electron, all of which we may refer to as "the source", will continue on its merry way through galactic and cosmic space. The photon will have no idea of, and carry no information regarding, the future position and exploits of the source - they are separated, with no shared inertial connection whatsoever. The speed and direction of the source object bears no relationship at all to that of the photon. I am at a loss to understand how or why you have developed this notion. Are you able to explain what logic or analysis of physical relationships has persuaded you into this line of reasoning?.

Michael

Sorry you are at a loss. Photons are an artifact in my book. If the radiation does not remain centered upon the source, how come the speed of light, measured in the same frame as the source, from said source is the purported foot per nanosecond that we all know and love? Seems to me the illogic is on your side.

[Sparky]

Sparky,

Michael V: Taking the "velocity" of the Sun to be 230,000m/s (a rough average of several quoted values),

Sparky: Of what value are these quoted values? What observations were used to calculate velocity?

The given values given for the Sun's progress with respect to the galactic centre are in the range of 215-250km/s; google told me so. But what exactly are you asking?

Well, I agree that if the sun is moving through the galaxy, as you say, it would describe a helical trajectory, along with the planets. But this all hinges upon movement. What observations were used to calculate velocity, indeed, movement, and in what relative direction?

Should we accept the conclusions of those who also propose black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, and redshift equals distance?

What if the solar system is moving outward, along the arm of the galaxy, being slowly, to us, ejected? ireallydonno

[Michael V]

Sparky,

that if the sun is moving through the galaxy, as you say,

I am hugely surprised. I had no idea that the notion of spiral galaxies rotating was so controversial.

Michael

[Goldminer]

Sparky,

that if the sun is moving through the galaxy, as you say,

I am hugely surprised. I had no idea that the notion of spiral galaxies rotating was so controversial.

Michael

Galaxies rotate very slowly. Some so slow that they have not made more than a few revolutions since the supposed "Big Bang," which negates that theory. The Sun doesn't so much "rotate through the galaxy," it rotates with the galaxy. The Sun and its system are basically at rest with the local neighboring stars. The spiral arms travel as a group, if they didn't there would be no spiral arms.