Sun as a Meteor

So are the planets following the sun or is the orbital plane angled? It's either or.

It's both. The sun has trapped the planets in its orbital plane and they are along for the ride. That orbital plane just happens to be angled this way now - though it changes slowly over time. ...Potentially quickly, given a big enough gravitational influence, but there's no evidence of that having happened, so far that I know. Well, save for the fact that Uranus is on its side and both it and Venus are spinning on the wrong direction, but that seems more likely due to collisions within the system.

The planets orbit the sun, they do not follow behind it like ops pic shows.

the tilted ecliptic shows that the planets do not follow behind the sun, because some planets are "in front" of the sun during their orbits. at least this is how i visualized it

That's not what OP pics shows - freeze frame it. They only appear to be falling behind because of the little trails the CGI artist stuck onto them to indicate movement.

>not what ops pic shows
yes it is and it's been beaten to death by irl science people

universetoday.com/107322/is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex/

Did you even read the article you just linked?
>Yet I’m not so sure the viral gif does show the Sun leading the planets. Having read through the author’s website, I can’t find any evidence that he suggests this. In fact, some of other videos on his website clearly show that this isn’t the case.
>youtube.com/watch?v=zBlAGGzup48
>It seems to me that the appearance of the Sun leading the planets in the gif is just the result of a projection effect – i.e. that things can look different from different angles.

Going frame by frame, it looks to me as though all the planets are maintaining their place in the equator of the solar plane. The idea that they are not seems to be an optical illusion, like the link you just gave suggests, but I suppose I wouldn't be able to prove it definitively without the original 3D model.

the masses and distances of the planets are enough that the barycenter can be more than 1 solar diameter away from the sun. The planets literally spend much of their time not orbiting the sun. except when the planets are on opposite sides of each other cancelling each other out.

scale

Because the definition of a meteor is debris that enters the Earth atmosphere from space.

I think you meant, "asteroid". Which are defined as minor planets and planetoids that orbit a star.

The sun does not emit a sole yellow laser out of its hind end. The entire sun is a deadly lazer, in all directions.

slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html

>"lazer"
>but it goes in all directions

The scale is wrong and so are you.

There is one point that I haven't yet seen in any discussion about the helical motion of the planets. It involves considering that the orientation of the ecliptic poles remain more or less stationary relative to the universe at large as the solar system revolves around the galaxy. The result is, there are times when the solar system's planetary motions are somewhat as shown in the video, as well as times when the motion is perfectly edge-on (a sort of galactic solstice), and we allegorically cut through the galaxy like a flying Frisbee. We just happen to be in that part of our orbit where the orientation is more face-on than at others.

Could we even tell what the Sun's axial tilt (assuming the ecliptic approximately follows the solar equator, I don't actually know) relative to the galaxy would be? The timescale of the Sun's orbit around the centre of the galaxy is just too huge.

Current orientation:

>Theory: stars are something akin to a Meteor with significantly more material
>Why is this retarded
Because you dismiss entirely the differences in composition, structure, and state of the matter contained in the two objects as well.

Yes it is flat universe and the suns velocity creates spacetime fabric perpendicular... your brain size is showing because I was just looking at the Stars last night and all the planets follow the same orbit path as the sun, also the sun is moving away from the Orion and moving toward Sagittarius both are located on the Milky Way band, the Milky Way has its own space-time fabric moving in a Direction toward Andromeda. this is why the Earth doesn't roll like a marble with the sun above Antarcticabut instead is perpendicular because of the different gravitational forces

light is only attracted to Mass

>Why is this retarded
Meteors are heated by friction and compression of gasses. Stars have some kind of internal energy source for their heat. (We are quite certain we know what it is, in fact.)

>Our opinion, in fact
>t. Scientist
just the facts please

>Theory: stars are something akin to a Meteor with significantly more material

Theory: planets are something akin to a Meteor with significantly more material

>just the facts please
Sure. Like you'd even bother.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/procyc.html

When it's so much easier to listen to your fellow lazy-brains.

Yeah... the video is just a bit ambiguous due to angle of view, and it cuts just before what I would have assumed it shows the planets and Sun are all on the same average plane.

However, if go to the web site you find out that he does advocate for a "pulling" Sun, and he loses respect. Too bad, because his graphics are otherwise pretty cool in showing the helical nature of the motion of SS through the cosmos.

But the surrounding intragalactic material is also orbiting the center of the galaxy. So the trails would be relative to the universe at large, not the surrounding medium.

And then there's:

This almost reads like a BaconRider post.

i like this one

I don't know who that is and I don't care to find out but your post reads like something I would here watching The View

I should further explain why Earth doesn't roll like a marble around the sun with the axis pointing toward the Sun at all times. even scientists agree that the Earth is like a giant magnet with the North Pole and South Pole, therefore the Earth in any other planet or star will be pointing toward the strongest magnetic gravitational field on a larger scale exactly like this small magnet does in space microgravity
Space Video Blog: Magnetism: youtu.be/NvJcrGlzGAg

Egads. Another graduate of the self-guided curricula at YouTube U.

People show symptoms of anger and depression when their belief structures are challenged, that can explain the headche and rationalization of claiming stupidity. That vid is an experiment and visual proof that I sought out to confirm my personal theory of earth's spin. University education is less real than personal curiosity and experimentation. I value people challenging my ideas but not my character. In the modern information age anyone who pays to have someone else tell them what reality is, and believes it only because their peers agree is a brainlet.

The difference is the Earth's mass has rotational energy before it had it's magnetic field. The earth's rotation, the orbital momentum of the planets, and the rotation of most astronomical bodies is dominated by the gravitation collapse of a large gas and dust cloud billions of years ago. Beyond that tidal forces or collisions with other bodies further influence rotational and orbital momentum.

But for tiny ass magnets sure, magnetism wins.

Also, the mechanism that governs that tiny magnet's magnetic field is different from the one that governs the Earth's magnetic field.

>Also, the mechanism that governs that tiny magnet's magnetic field is different from the one that governs the Earth's magnetic field.

Every single magnetic field is the same, relying on dielectric inertia plane to propagate said magnetism. The only difference is that earths mass is not coherent and aligned like a man made magnet that's had a current induced into it when it was created.

Counter theory: meteors are stars that are significantly less hot.