Our planet is corkscrewing through space – Video

Our planet is corkscrewing through space – Video

Well, it’s not exactly corkscrewing, but if I had used the word “torus,” most people would have had no idea what I meant.

This video will blow your mind.

“The earth is not revolving around the sun,” this video shows. “That’s the equivalent of thinking that the earth is flat.”

“Our orbit is eliptical … vortecular … with a torque dynamic.”

Thanks to Stephanie Relfe for this video.




21 thoughts on “Our planet is corkscrewing through space – Video

  1. I was really enjoying this until he went all hocus pocus with the space-time nonsense. Invoking a gravity centric spin to this is completely unnecessary. Plasma cosmology explains this quite well and toroidal formations are completely natural and predicted by it.

    • hi again DW,

      I can see you’re putting an honest and
      diligent effort into your cosmological

      I will continue with my assumption you are objecting to certain theories for
      scriptural reasons, and respectfully
      present you with
      a set of assertions regarding “space-time”
      you may investigate if you wish:

      1.Christianity has had a great affinity
      for the Greek “logos”, and in particular
      geometry as a method of gaining insight
      into the mind of the Creator from the 1st
      2.Decartes monumental synthesis of his
      Cartesian coordinate system — the “space”
      part of “space-time” is a crowning
      achievement of Christianity
      3.Isaac Newton saw his adding “time” to
      “space-time” was viewed by him and the
      world as a form of worship, and was
      percieved as a towering achievement of
      4.Newton openly speculated on whether
      “space-time” had any real existance, or
      was merely a useful way of analyzing things
      5.Einstein the same, in fact leaning toward
      your view that “space-time” had no real
      existance, except maybe in infinitesmlly
      small contiguous differential elements
      of volume.
      6.if Newton and Einstein doubt whether
      “space-time” exists, it’s A-OK for you
      to doubt it also
      7.even if it doesn’t exist, it’s still
      awefully useful.
      8.if you’re arguaing against space-time
      because you think it contradicts Christianity, you’re shooting yourself
      in the foot, because this concept is
      one of Christianity’s towering accomplishments.
      9.my remarks are my poor rendition of
      those of Dr Stanley Jaki PhD Divinity,
      PhD Physics — if you are interested
      in this topic, suggest you read any or all
      of his books that appeal to you.

      Respectfully submitted for your consideration,


  2. dw,I disagree. You should open your mind to new ideas. I see you as the same ilk that called those that said the earth revolved around the sun as “hocus pocus”.

    • I don’t see where DW has a closed mind to new ideas. Seems he just didn’t appreciate nor accept some of the aspects of Einstein’s laws. Not sure I blame him. I rather thought that was the only thing that he didn’t like.

      I’m the one with the closed mine as it just looks like someone trying to put a new math spin on the same old thing. It appears that from the point of view of the Sun, the Earth still orbits in a plane, and as we like to pretend, all things are relative in a relativity universe. I never did figure out where that double torus came from, and I can’t see how it describes the Earth’s motion through space. But when you play with math, you can come up with some rather unique features that don’t seem to make sense. And try as they like, I am not sure all things can be stated in a mathematical formula. Then again, it might be a natural product of the global warming computer simulation.

    • The hocus pocus I’m speaking of involves such fantastical entities as space-time fabric, black holes, dark matter and dark energy. These are things that cosmologist’s have invented to keep the BBT theory viable. They can never be directly tested or even detected.
      My mind is wide open to new ideas, which is why I’ve bought both of Mr. Felix’s books severeal times ( I keep giving them away under the pretext of a loan) and find much more supportive evidence in plasma cosmology than I do for Big Bang Theory.
      Instead of glibbly criticising me, do a little research into plasma cosmology and the Electric Universe theory.If you have an open mind, I think you’ll enjoy it and understand my post a bit better. You will also find that both of these theories dovetail quite nicely with Mr. Felix’s theories. They are based on direct observational science, the way science is supposed to be done.

      • hi DW,

        let me guess that you’re favouring
        “Electric Universe” theory, and disparaging
        Big Bang Theory in order to reconcile
        with a “young earth” theory as suggested
        by some interpretations of Genesis 1.

        I suggest some lines of investigation for you:

        1.BBT and Genesis 1. are pretty much
        IDENTICAL. even Einstein concedes this.
        2a.the “young earth” theory hinges on
        the KJV interpretation of the Hebrew
        word “Yom” as the English “Day”. the
        bible itself uses “yom” to denote
        various time-frames from 12 hours
        to eons. my personal view is that
        the “young earth” interpretation
        of Genesis is due to an overly simple
        KJV interpretation of the original
        2b.BBT was in fact developed and presented
        by a Roman Catholic priest who saw
        it CONFIRMING Genesis. in fact it
        was EINSTEIN who sought to bring in
        various mathematical terms to falsify
        BBT, not the other way around.
        3.scientific theories are verfied
        by making non-obvious predictions, then verifying them thru experiment.
        4. this has been done for both curved
        space-time (light bending around the sun), BBT theory (prediction of the 3K
        cosmological back-ground radiation),
        black holes (you can observe their
        ENORMOUS gravitational effects) tho
        NOT dark matter or dark energy — I
        believe these are still awaiting (or may never get) experimental verification.
        5.I found “Electric Universe” theory
        to be a fun diversion, because it’s
        obviously been put together with
        some physics expertise. but it’s been
        falsified by: observing the byproducts
        of nuclear fusions with gas spectroscopy; NASA sattelites don’t
        observe the onslaught of electrons falling
        into the sun as required by the theory;
        I think the earth being knocked from
        Saturn’s orbit to its present location
        would leave a MASSIVE geological and
        geo-magnetic record which simply
        hasn’t been seen. a fun theory, but
        not needed if you discard the young
        earth theory.



  3. Movement relative to what? Movement relative to where? Galaxy? Supercluster? Big Bang? All of the above?

  4. Just remember, unless the subject is man-made global warming – it’s all just a theory and up for debate!

  5. Robert, LOVE your site.

    as one who has studied special relativity, celestial mechanics, tho not general relativity, a couple of

    1.the value in this post is if you’re interested, read
    “pacemaker of the iceages, and learn about Malinkovitch
    2.I agree with some things the lecturer says, disagree
    with others, can’t discover who he is, and whether he
    has any scientific credentials, and what is the point
    of view he intends this to make sense from.

    the big picture:

    1.most of our sun’s planets orbit in the plane defined by the sun’s equator; each of them “wobbles”
    like a top
    2.the sun and most stars orbit in the galactic plane
    each “wobbling”; his “corck-screw” diagram is OK
    3.this is sufficient for this site, and you should
    go out and get the “pace-maker” book if interested
    4.he’s right that coriolis foces produce clock-wise
    and counter-clockwise hurricanes N and S poles, and
    WRONG that it affects the water in your bath tub
    5.the “double torus” depicts the space-time manifold
    of the UNIVERSE, not the earth travelling thru space
    6.special relativity and curved space-time is pretty
    much viewed as PROVED fact and not speculative at all.
    you can verify this by observing we have atom bombs,
    nuclear reactors, and the light from distant stars
    “bends” around the sun.
    7.general relativity or “why” space-time is bent is
    still SPECULATIVE — for the purposes of iceagenow,
    you can ignore all the space-time stuff, it has no bearing
    on whether we’re headed into an ice age.



  6. I would like to address a number of the lecturer’s
    statments that previous understandings are “wrong”.

    in Physics today, everything IS relative, and we take
    the frame, the coordinate system, and resulting simplifications that make understanding and solving the problem

    1.it is WRONG to view the planets as rotating in the
    solar plane. well, this is perfectly correct in the
    sun’s frame of reference, and it’s good enough for
    NASA to do all it’s current and past work. this statement
    REALLY makes me suspect this guy isn’t a physicist,
    mathematician, or engineer.
    2.it’s WRONG that the earth is flat. well, within
    certain limits the tangential plane to the surface
    of the earth is a very useful approximation. civil
    engineers from Rome, Egypt, Babylon, etc were able
    to put up buildings that lasted thousands of years
    using this approximation. I’d say that 99.99999%
    of all current engineering — civil, mechanical,
    electrical, etc proceeds perfectly well today using
    this approximation. unless Robert has designed
    a space-station or sattelite, I would bet he has
    gone thru his whole career desiging structures using
    the flat earth approximation.



    • LP,
      Physics today suffers from a case of believing is seeing and that is a direct result of concensus thinking and “relativity” in general. If A ACTUALLY happens before B, your frame of reference doesn’t alter that reality. Just because you see B before A doesn’t change the fact that A occurred first.
      If you follow the climate debates at all, you’re aware that CO2 and temperature change have a link. AGW believer’s frame of reference is that CO2 precedes warming when actual facts reveal that warming is preceding CO2 levels.
      This reveals a fatal flaw in Einstein’s theories: Perception does not alter reality. Never has, never will. Modern cosmology and physics has allowed the tool, mathematics, to become the master. Math is a conceptual tool used to describe physical phenomena. It is not, in and of itself, a physical phenomena. Just because the right numbers cancel out in an equation doesn’t mean that the equation is correct in the real world. Actual observation trumps the theoretical every time.


      • hi DW,

        I like your approach of setting the
        problem in a Philosophy of Science
        context, where we decide whether AGW
        is “science” or “not science” depending on whether it conforms to
        scientific principles and methodologies.

        I’ll elaborate some of your points and
        introduce another — Karl Popper’s “falsifiability”

        the idea that causes precede effects
        is from Greek logic, and pre-dates
        or is a prerequisite for scientific
        thought — all causes MUST precede
        effects or it’s not Western thought,
        or Western science.

        I agree the current GW trend started
        before the industrial revolution and
        industrial CO2 emissions, therfor
        AGW is NOT science.

        I agree that atmospheric CO2 rises
        AFTER a warming trend, therefor AGW
        is NOT science.

        you and Einstein agree that if A
        causes B, then it does so in all

        specifically and exactly, the “interval” — “S” between A and B
        is “invariant” (i.e. “the same”) in
        all frames. this is just the
        Pythagorean theorem in a Minkowski

        you and Einstein would disagree in
        that where A doesn’t cause B, you
        might see A happening before B in
        some frames, and B happening before
        A in others, but I don’t see that
        Einstein’s relativity can be used
        to support the idea that if A
        (warming) occurs before B (CO2 rising) that B could cause A.

        observation trumping theory as a
        Philosophy of Science issue would
        have been settled in the 1210 -1277
        “condemnations” from the bishops
        of Paris.

        the IPCC mathematical model, or theory
        matches no known actual thermometer
        readings (i.e REAL observations) from
        the last century — they exclude
        cooling trends from 1945-1980 and
        1997 to now, therefor AGW is NOT

        Karl Popper asserts that theories
        that are not “falsifiable” are not
        science or Western thought. i.e. if you can’t set up an experiment which
        can prove the theory right or wrong,
        or you keep changing your theory
        to suit new facts then your theory
        isn’t falsifiable, and it isn’t
        science or Western logical thought.

        e.g. there are many experiments
        which could be performed to prove
        Einstein’s theory of relativity
        wrong. e.g. a faster than light
        particle would falsify Relativity
        and get you the Nobel prize in
        Physics. the Physics world is
        currently abuzz with the possibility
        of FTL neutrinos which might have been
        observed at CERN.

        for over a century, the Best and the
        Brightest have been performed every
        conceivable experiment to falsify
        Relativity to no avail — Relativity
        isn’t believed because of some “consensus” by some clique of science
        high priests, but because it hasn’t
        been falsified yet.

        “Electric universe” is a scientific theory in the sense that it can
        be falsified.

        essentially EU postulates the sun isn’t powered by hydrogen nuclear
        fusions, it’s an electric plasma
        discharge similar to a neon light.

        you can falsify this by doing gas
        chromatography/spectroscopy on the
        sun’s corona to see if the byproducts
        of nuclear fusions are there, or
        investigating the results of the
        Sudbury Ontario neutrino lab to see
        if solar nuclear fusion is taking

        AGW proponents believe warming
        proves AGW, and cooling does also.
        i.e. it can’t be falsified, so it
        isn’t Western thought, or Science.

        Popper developed his falsifiability
        criterion to prove that Marxism
        wasn’t falsifiable, therefor it wasn’t
        rational or scientific.

        I think AGW isn’t falsifiable because
        it’s a component of Marxist thought
        which isn’t falsifiable.

        hope this helps,


        • hey again DW,

          some thoughts on Relativity
          (Special, not the general theory):

          1.I don’t see how it directly bears
          on AGW — Classical celestial
          dynamics are quite enough to understand Malinkovitch cycles which
          seem to be affecting or causing
          our ice age cycle
          2.Relativity HAS been thoroughly
          tested/proved by experiment (nice
          Wikepedia article re. the
          definitive experiments )
          3.if you are skeptical, I STRONGLY
          encourage you study some special
          Relativity — the basic theory isn’t
          that hard — it’s just an
          application of the Pythagorean
          theorem in 4-D space-time — no

          my FAVE introductory book is:

          Special Relativity (The M.I.T. Introductory Physics Series) by A.P. French Paperback $30.98

          it is a self-contained course that
          you can work thru with high school
          trig and calculus.

          if you’re hazy, keep a diagram of
          sin, cos, tan, sinh, cosh, tanh,
          some common formulae, and their
          differential and integral forms.

          keep at it, and soon you will have
          a detailed appreciation of one
          of Science’s most spectacular

          absolutely see if you can get access
          to high-school, university labs or
          telescopes to prove or disprove
          the classic experiments.

          this is the Scientific approach,
          this is a Scientific age, and I
          strongly encourage you to be a part
          of it.

          I notice a quantum text in the same
          series. I haven’t read that one,
          but if it’s on the same level, absolutely go for it.

          quantum is the one where observation
          of microscopic particles affects
          their state. get this book, and get
          a fine detailed understanding of
          what this is all about, and disprove
          it if you can.

          I’m not sure what you don’t like
          about the “relativity” of it all.

          I tried to think of any way that
          Einstein’s theory was relative in
          a way that Newton’s wasn’t, and

          I researched it a bit on the Net,
          and it appears that Western physics
          has been “relative” since Galileo,
          in contrast to Aristotle who
          postulated an absolute frame in
          which things could be at “rest”, and
          the stationary “ether” of Michelson/
          Morely fame.

          the Universe is thought to be
          “isotropic”, or the same in every
          direction, implying that there IS
          no absolute frame, but recently
          there has been some indication of
          asymmettries (sp?) in the Universe, which
          WOULD imply an absolute frame, in
          which case we’d have to go back to
          an Aristotlean or ether type frame.

          but that’s over my head — don’t
          know much about that.

          TOTALLY recommend you pursue this
          and be part of it.


        • Hey back at ya LP.
          I think you misunderstood my link with consensus cosmology and AGW. The “concensus” part is what I was trying to make a point of. Concensus “science” has been wrong for the better part of human history.
          I’m not a trained physicist, but I AM a trained electrical engineer, specializing in power generation and, therefore, EU is quite understadnable to me. I’m very comfortable in high school math.
          Thank you very much for the references you listed. I would like to refer you to a couple of authors that you might find interesting.
          Of particular interest to your comment on chromatography/spectroscopy on the
          sun’s corona:http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/papersCNO%20cycle.htm
          This tells a somewhat different tale than the one you know. I hope you find it informative.


  7. As Norm Smith said above:
    “Right now you are moving 1,342,000 mph.

    447,000 mph of that is our solar system’s rotation around the galactic center”.

    The suns flight through the galaxy is just one motion of several.
    The Milky Way is also traveling through space, and probably yawing, wobbling, rotating and possibly circling (orbiting), as it goes.
    Whatever this motion is, has to be added to the sun and planets motion to get the true shape of their path.

    There is probably at least one more larger, long term corkscrew produced by the movement of the galaxy.

  8. I truly appreciate seeing the intellectual and civil exchange here. I made the mistake of challenging an AGW article posted on the Huffington Post once. It had already been thoroughly shredded at sites like wattsupwiththat. No one could refute my points and questions, but it didn’t stop about 24 people from hurling invective and ad hominem attacks my direction.

    I started reading articles on junkscience.com around 2000. There have been posted literally hundreds of articles in the category of “scientists once thought, but now believe, know, think, etc.” What I determined is that “consensus” is a myth and not part of the scientific method to begin with. There have been recent battles with Dr. Stephen Hawking and even he has reversed a position in the recent past (I think it had something to do with light being able to escape a black hole).

    One thing that has always piqued my interest though: It seems when the math doesn’t work out, physicists just add a new dimension (also not observable). Are we up to 11 now?

    One other note with regard to “consensus”. It was an absolute “fact” in the scientific community that the cosmos had an infinite past, right up until the consensus became the big bang theory. Physicists have to admit that a supernatural event occurred – most just don’t believe it was caused by a supernatural being.

Comments are closed.