The helical model - our solar system is a vortex (our Galaxy, too)

[A Simple Game]

28. Now you have me confused even more.

I asked you to explain what you meant by "behind" in your previous post which said:

carefully to avoid sun blindness and carefully by plotting the planetary motion as it travels behind the sun so that you can predict when it will be reappearing.

the bold is mine and thanks for the warning but I'm not nearly as stupid as you seem to think.

You replied with this:

"Behind" means that the planets trail the sun on the line of travel of the sun through the galaxy, according to the "theory" of DJ Sadhu and Bhat

. I'm sorry but I can't understand how that answers my question about your use of the word behind.

You say:

Facts always come before a theory. ALWAYS.

Then you say:

When a new fact appears that violates the theory, then a new theory is needed.

I went to the dictionary for this, yup, I do know what a fact is: from Dictionary.com

something that actually exists; reality; truth

Now something is either a fact or not, true or not.

As for a theory:

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Also from Dictionary.com, bold is mine.

I was taught, admittedly quite a while ago, that a theory can explain a fact or create one. Is a fact a fact if nobody knows it? So according to my teaching, we are both right, except for your insistence that a "fact" always comes first. Think about the "fact" that the stars are moving. Was that a fact before it was a theory? Doubtful in my mind, it must have taken a lot of theorizing to decide that "fact". There are an awful lot of variables to sort through. Are the stars moving? Is the earth moving? Etc, etc, etc. Get the point? You propose a theory and look for supporting facts, don't find any then your theory is wrong and you start over. I thought this process was well known. I guess they don't teach it anymore.

As for:

The so-called "theory" of DJ Sadhu and Bhat do not explain any facts that other theories explain.

I don't really think they are trying to support any of the "facts" explained by the other theories, I think they are trying to dispute them.

Again after all of that is said I doubt their theory is true, but it is interesting and fun to explore.
Remember the most valuable tool for a scientist is an open mind.