Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Paradigmer on 24/05/2019 06:33:43
-
This is a presentation of a bite size UVS subtopic on "A comparative analysis of the Solar System with the UVS atomic model (https://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20geometrical%20structure%20of%20an%20atom.htm#Solar_System_atom)".
With gratitude to the global moderator here who has allowed the UVS website with its non mainstream propositions to be posted in this section, which is crucial for this presentation.
From the UVS perspective, the Solar System encapsulated in the heliosphere (https://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20heliosphere.htm), is a vortically formed nested torus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torus) structure. It was vortically formed as a planetary system that has resonated to manifest in its galactic vortical system, which forms the Milky Way.
In the UVS worldview (https://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20worldview.htm), the Solar System in its nested encapsulation, can be coherently perceived as a macroscopic scale atom. And it can also be perceived as a macroscopic scale atom of its galactic scale molecule.
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together." - Max Planck
If you are positively interested with the above propositions, you are most welcome to explore its insight in the UVS topic on "The UVS inductive resolution on the structure of atom (https://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20geometrical%20structure%20of%20an%20atom.htm)", or even the entire UVS treatise (https://www.uvs-model.com/).
p.s. Sometimes the links for whatsoever reason, could not go to the correct section in the linked webpage. A remedy is to find with the keyword in the webpage to get there.
-
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together." - Max Planck
We now know that's not true.
The electrons in atoms are not moving in orbits.
-
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together." - Max Planck
We now know that's not true.The electrons in atoms are not moving in orbits.
The premise of your this opinion was misplaced with your preconceived idea on planets are revolving in the Solar System in orbits.
The quoted proposition of Max Planck did not assert the major planets are actually revolving in the Solar System in orbits.
As a matter of fact, when factors in their apsidal precession effects, all the major planets are actually revolving around the barycenter of the Solar System in their ring torus orbitals. And electrons in atoms, can be coherently described as moving in their orbitals of transformed torus geometries.
And the evidence for ring torus orbitals of Solar System objects that had been discovered, is simply overwhelming. The Io plasma torus (https://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_picture.asp?id=1174)is one of the examples.
-
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together." - Max Planck
We now know that's not true.The electrons in atoms are not moving in orbits.
The premise of your this opinion was misplaced with your preconceived idea on planets are revolving in the Solar System in orbits.
The quoted proposition of Max Planck did not assert the major planets are actually revolving in the Solar System in orbits.
As a matter of fact, when factors in their apsidal precession effects, all the major planets are actually revolving around the barycenter of the Solar System in their ring torus orbitals. And electrons in atoms, can be coherently described as moving in their orbitals of transformed torus geometries.
And the evidence for ring torus orbitals of Solar System objects that had been discovered, is simply overwhelming. The Io plasma torus (https://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_picture.asp?id=1174)is one of the examples.
Lots of words.
None of them matters.
Electrons don't orbit.
(BTW, planets do)
-
None of them matters.Electrons don't orbit.(BTW, planets do)
Max Planck did not actually say electrons are orbiting.
BTW, planetary orbit is an incomplete concept, and it is a physical paradox that does not reflect the orbital it entails.
-
it is a physical paradox
In what way?
-
In what way?
Try visualizing planetary orbital with the apsidal precession effect.
Take a look at the Io plasma torus.
-
Take a look at the Io plasma torus.
No, I won't.
Because it's not relevant. It's not a planet.
Try visualizing planetary orbital with the apsidal precession effect.
Sure.
There's an animation of it here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession
Perfectly well sorted out.
So, where's the paradox?
-
Sure.There's an animation of it here.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precessionPerfectly well sorted out.So, where's the paradox?
Really?
Does it occurs to you that Sun is not the center of the Solar System as portrayed in the animation you showed? This is one of the fundamental physical paradoxes.
If you fast forward the revolving motion of the Earth by a million times, you can visualize it traces out a ring torus orbital in the Solar System. The orbiting proposition of a planet revolving around the Sun, is an incomplete concept with the cognitive paradox it entails with the postulated orbit of a coalesced nebulous body without mentioning its underlying orbital, which renders another physical paradox when referred to reality.
And there are more physical paradoxes about the Solar System as described with the heliocentric model, which mainstream planetary science are fallaciously based upon to describe planetary orbit.
No, I won't.
Because it's not relevant. It's not a planet.
Are you saying the observed Io orbital of its orbit is not relevant because Io is not a planet? Lame.
This is the New Theories section. If you are not interested with alternative point of views, its alright you stay with your beliefs, but please don't side steps to post here as if you are advocating the facts on the actualities of the empirical observations.
-
Does it occurs to you that Sun is not the center of the Solar System as portrayed in the animation you showed? This is one of the fundamental physical paradoxes.
Yes, the concept of barycenters isn't a new one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
I admit that I do not see a paradox either.
-
Yes, the concept of barycenters isn't a new one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BarycenterI admit that I do not see a paradox either.
It is a fact that all Solar System objects including the Sun, are revolving around the barycenter of the Solar System. Despite the concept of barycenter is not new, it was generally omitted for describing planetary orbits. The suggested animation shows planets are revolving around the Sun in the described orbit, is definitely a physical paradox of an incomplete concept when referred to reality.
-
It is a fact that all Solar System objects including the Sun, are revolving around the barycenter of the Solar System. Despite the concept of barycenter is not new, it was generally omitted for describing planetary orbits. The suggested animation shows planets are revolving around the Sun in the described orbit, is definitely a physical paradox of an incomplete concept when referred to reality.
That's not a paradox. It's just a simplification.
-
That's not a paradox. It's just a simplification.
The illustrated animation misplaced the actuality with the Sun posited as the center of the Solar System to describe planetary orbits. Planets actually are not revolving around the heliocentric Sun as apparently observed, this is definitely a physical paradox.
In the way you put it, you can also say that geocentrism is just a simplification, so it is not a physical paradox.
-
That's not a paradox. It's just a simplification.
The illustrated animation misplaced the actuality with the Sun posited as the center of the Solar System to describe planetary orbits. Planets actually are not revolving around the heliocentric Sun as apparently observed, this is definitely a physical paradox.
In the way you put it, you can also say that geocentrism is just a simplification, so it is not a physical paradox.
So, the problem is easily solved.
We just need to explain to you that the word "paradox" does not mean what you think it does.
"paradox
/ˈparədɒks/
noun
a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.
"the uncertainty principle leads to all sorts of paradoxes, like the particles being in two places at once"
synonyms: contradiction, contradiction in terms, self-contradiction, inconsistency, incongruity, anomaly, conflict; More
a statement or proposition which, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems logically unacceptable or self-contradictory.
"the liar paradox"
a person or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities.
"cathedrals face the paradox of having enormous wealth in treasures but huge annual expenses""
-
That's not a paradox. It's just a simplification.
The illustrated animation misplaced the actuality with the Sun posited as the center of the Solar System to describe planetary orbits. Planets actually are not revolving around the heliocentric Sun as apparently observed, this is definitely a physical paradox.
In the way you put it, you can also say that geocentrism is just a simplification, so it is not a physical paradox.
So, the problem is easily solved.
We just need to explain to you that the word "paradox" does not mean what you think it does.
"paradox
/ˈparədɒks/
noun
a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.
"the uncertainty principle leads to all sorts of paradoxes, like the particles being in two places at once"
synonyms: contradiction, contradiction in terms, self-contradiction, inconsistency, incongruity, anomaly, conflict; More
a statement or proposition which, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems logically unacceptable or self-contradictory.
"the liar paradox"
a person or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities.
"cathedrals face the paradox of having enormous wealth in treasures but huge annual expenses""
Go get educated on physical paradox (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_paradox) before you make more goof comments.
-
OK, it says
"A physical paradox is an apparent contradiction in physical descriptions of the universe"
Now.
Tell me where you think there is a contradiction in physics as we know it.
The fact that we approximate the barycentre of the solar system by the centre of the Sun isn't a contradiction, because it's quite close to being correct.
If we said it was Neptune, that would be a problem.
... before you make more goof comments.
I will continue to comment on your goofs as I see fit.
-
Having studied physics for the last 60 years, I have not come across a single "paradox" that was anything but a misunderstanding on the part of the proposer.
We occasionally invoke simplified models involving weightless string or even non-radiating moving electrons, but all scientists know the difference between a model and reality.
-
In the way you put it, you can also say that geocentrism is just a simplification, so it is not a physical paradox.
Pretending that heliocentrism and geocentrism are equally wrong is "wronger than wrong": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronger_than_wrong
Heliocentrism is a much closer approximation of reality than geocentrism is.
-
Now.Tell me where you think there is a contradiction in physics as we know it.The fact that we approximate the barycentre of the solar system by the centre of the Sun isn't a contradiction, because it's quite close to being correct.
It is not an approximate issue.
The physics of the heliocentric Solar System model with a centric Sun and its orbiting planets, was a misplacement, and planetary orbit is an incomplete concept when refers to reality. Besides the centric Sun posit is a physical paradox, the incompleteness of the orbiting planet concept also give rise to its physical paradox. Quite close to being correct does not make these misconceptions as not physical paradoxes.
That statement of Max Planck did not say electrons are orbiting, but you put words into his mouth with your beliefs that were misplaced as facts of the reality.
And you lack the cognizance to understand your strawman argument even after it was highlighted to you; why stubbornly dragged orbit into the argument at all when the comparative analysis is on orbital?
-
The physics of the heliocentric Solar System model with a centric Sun and its orbiting planets, was a misplacement, and planetary orbit is an incomplete concept when refers to reality. Besides the centric Sun posit is a physical paradox, the incompleteness of the orbiting planet concept also give rise to its physical paradox. Quite close to being correct does not make these misconceptions as not physical paradoxes.
As pointed out to you before, scientists already know that the barycenter of the Solar System isn't exactly at the Sun's center. So there is no contradiction between scientific knowledge and reality.
-
Having studied physics for the last 60 years, I have not come across a single "paradox" that was anything but a misunderstanding on the part of the proposer.
Greeting! You must have a wealth of valuable knowledge!
Indeed "paradox" was anything but a misunderstanding on the part of the proposer.
Nonetheless, my UVS treatise on "The paradox effect of nature (https://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20paradoxical%20effect.htm)" explains a natural mechanism that could cause proposers their misunderstanding when interpreting empirical observations.
You are most welcome to evaluate it, and please feel free to comment.
We occasionally invoke simplified models involving weightless string or even non-radiating moving electrons, but all scientists know the difference between a model and reality.
Your summarized what a renowned scientist had said:
“The more you see, how strange nature behaves, the harder it is for us, to make a model, that explains even how the most simple phenomena works. Theoretical physics has given up on this pursuit.” - Richard Fenyman
But unfortunately I observed lots of people do not know the difference between a model and reality, take their belief of a model as the reality, and insisted it as the actual fact of reality.
-
Pretending that heliocentrism and geocentrism are equally wrong is "wronger than wrong": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronger_than_wrongHeliocentrism is a much closer approximation of reality than geocentrism is.
It is not about heliocentrism and geocentrism are equally wrong. In fact heliocentrism and geocentrism are not only analytically correct in their worldviews, they are also pragmatically useful for their applications to great extends.
But that doesn't mean they do not suffer their physical paradoxes, which means their propositions must not be deemed as absolutely factual while we are trying to further explore on the actualities of the Solar System and the universe.
-
In fact heliocentrism and geocentrism are not only analytically correct in their worldviews
Geocentrism is not even remotely correct.
But that doesn't mean they do not suffer their physical paradoxes, which means their propositions must not be deemed as absolutely factual while we are trying to further explore on the actualities of the Solar System and the universe.
We know they are not absolutely factual. We've already said that multiple times.
-
As pointed out to you before, scientists already know that the barycenter of the Solar System isn't exactly at the Sun's center. So there is no contradiction between scientific knowledge and reality.
Except on the physics for the orbiting concept, was irrelevantly forced into the argument with the physical paradox of a centric Sun.
-
Except on the physics for the orbiting concept, was irrelevantly forced into the argument with the physical paradox of a centric Sun.
Who made that argument?
-
Geocentrism is not even remotely correct.
Its not about geocentrism is correct or not. Its quantitative predictions and engineering applications are still very pragmatically useful even in the nowadays modern science.
We know they are not absolutely factual. We've already said that multiple times.
Glad you said this. :)
-
Who made that argument?
This thread is not very long. Go read it up a bit and you should know who.
-
Its not about geocentrism is correct or not.
Then you shouldn't have said, "In fact heliocentrism and geocentrism are not only analytically correct in their worldviews". If it was irrelevant, then you shouldn't have brought it up.
This thread is not very long. Go read it up a bit and you should know who.
The only members who have replied this thread (other than you) are Bored Chemist, alancalverd and myself. None of us have argued that the Sun is the exact center of the Solar System.
-
Then you shouldn't have said, "In fact heliocentrism and geocentrism are not only analytically correct in their worldviews". If it was irrelevant, then you shouldn't have brought it up.
It is fact that the models of heliocentrism and geocentrism as postulated in their worldviews, have true values for the engineering applications they were meant for. And it is also fact that heliocentrism suffers its physical paradoxes when referred to reality, saying it is a simplification and omitting its incompleteness doesn't make its physical paradoxes go away. The belief of the heliocentric model in the bigotry way it was put forth in this thread, must not be held as absolute factual when evaluating its actualities.
The only members who have replied this thread (other than you) are Bored Chemist, alancalverd and myself. None of us have argued that the Sun is the exact center of the Solar System.
Then you must have observed I was grilled on stating there are physical paradoxes in the presented heliocentric model. So in my respond I was merely addressing two of the physical paradoxes. You guys wanted to consider the physical paradoxes do not exist at all because the model is a simplification is all up to your opinion. Saying scientists already know that the barycenter of the Solar System isn't exactly at the Sun's center, doesn't fundamentally rectify the propositions of its physics that was based on a centric Sun and the incompleteness of the said model.
I will stop short on these digressed discussions.
-
You said this
planetary orbit is an incomplete concept, and it is a physical paradox that does not reflect the orbital it entails.
And I asked what the paradox is.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what is paradoxical about orbits.
For what it's worth, I was the first one to mention orbits here by name
The electrons in atoms are not moving in orbits.
But you can't get round the fact that
this most minute solar system of the atom
implies orbital motion; that's what makes up the solar system (rather than everything just falling straight into the Sun).
So, you talked about orbits and you talked about a paradox.
What is the paradox?
Or should we just go back to the simple fact that you are wrong?
-
It is fact that the models of heliocentrism and geocentrism as postulated in their worldviews, have true values for the engineering applications they were meant for.
Geocentrism and heliocentrism weren't developed for engineering applications. They were simply models intended to fit observational data.
And it is also fact that heliocentrism suffers its physical paradoxes when referred to reality, saying it is a simplification and omitting its incompleteness doesn't make its physical paradoxes go away.
Why do you keep talking about physical paradoxes when we have repeatedly agreed with you that the Sun isn't the exact center of the Solar System? What is your beef?
The belief of the heliocentric model in the bigotry way it was put forth in this thread, must not be held as absolute factual when evaluating its actualities.
What does bigotry have to do with anything? Again, we know it isn't absolute fact. How many times do we have to say it?
Then you must have observed I was grilled on stating there are physical paradoxes in the presented heliocentric model.
Well the heliocentric model that you have presented is not the model that modern scientists use, so it's irrelevant.
So in my respond I was merely addressing two of the physical paradoxes. You guys wanted to consider the physical paradoxes do not exist at all because the model is a simplification is all up to your opinion.
Those "paradoxes" (which isn't even the right word to use) don't exist in the model that includes barycenters, which is what scientists actually use.
Saying scientists already know that the barycenter of the Solar System isn't exactly at the Sun's center, doesn't fundamentally rectify the propositions of its physics that was based on a centric Sun and the incompleteness of the said model.
So what? We know that the phlogiston model is wrong, too. But that doesn't matter because we don't use the phlogiston model anymore. Same thing with the idea that the Sun is the exact center of the Solar System. We don't use that model anymore either.
-
But you can't get round the fact that this most minute solar system of the atom
implies orbital motion; that's what makes up the solar system (rather than everything just falling straight into the Sun).
Nope. It was you who could not get around the misconception you misplaced as fact.
During Max Planck's time, the most widely accepted model in the field of cosmogony to explain the formation and evolution of the Solar System, is the nebular hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis). In all possibilities this concept of Solar System formation was what Max Planck had implied for his Planck's quantum theory.
And his statement did not imply planetary orbit at all as per your accusation; you were putting words into his mouth.
Your goof is proven. Case closed.
And your inability to understand the addressed physical paradoxes is yours, not mine. Please don't make your problems mine.
-
Well the heliocentric model that you have presented is not the model that modern scientists use, so it's irrelevant.
LOL! The heliocentric model was presented by BC, not me. So please understand it was not my issues. And thanks for pointing out that it was irrelevant.
The rest of your comments are digressing further, so I will not respond.
I agree with and respect your position on the propositions of a model with scientific consensus isn't absolute fact. However, many don't think so, so I can't say the same for them.
-
LOL! The heliocentric model was presented by BC, not me. So please understand it was not my issues.
When I say the one that "you have presented", I'm referring to your characterization of the heliocentric model as claiming that the Sun is at the exact center of the Solar System. That isn't what modern astronomers mean when they use the term.
-
When I say the one that "you have presented", I'm referring to your characterization of the heliocentric model as claiming that the Sun is at the exact center of the Solar System. That isn't what modern astronomers mean when they use the term.
OIC. I was requested to illustrate the contradictions on a bluntly shown "perfect" planetary orbit model in the drag that was uncalled for, so I was plainly addressing some of the physical paradoxes of the original heliocentric model. Put forth as one must not misplace the propositions of a model as absolute facts. That's all, nothing more, nothing less.
-
LOL! The heliocentric model was presented by BC,
No.
You presented it in the OP.
minute solar system
Had you forgotten?
Now, please tell us what this paradox, which you keep going on about, is,
-
The rest of your comments are digressing further
OK, let's get back to the first comment anyone made about your idea.
the Solar System in its nested encapsulation, can be coherently perceived as a macroscopic scale atom. And it can also be perceived as a macroscopic scale atom of its galactic scale molecule.
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together."
That's still wrong, because planets orbit in solar systems, but electrons don't orbit in atoms.
-
No.You presented it in the OP.
Had you forgotten?
Nay!
It's the Solar System that was mentioned, not the heliocentric model stubbornly put forth by you in your arguments. Go check your posts before you say people are forgetting things they are not.
Now, please tell us what this paradox, which you keep going on about, is,
For the benefits of other readers, before going further with the comparative analysis, I will highlight two relevant cognitive paradoxes of the Solar System, and then address two of the physical paradoxes as described with the heliocentric model. Particularly on the cognitive paradox on planetary orbits, whereas the cognitive paradox on the centric Sun is at the moment not the main issue here for the comparative analysis.
First, will briefly touch on how to correctly understand the paradoxical effect of nature as per the UVS treatise.
"The paradoxical effect of nature, is a subliminal natural effect that can mislead people in states of delusion with its naturally manifested negations. In the observable universe, this effect subliminally manifests cognitive paradoxes with the naturally negated observations of natural phenomena in a typical topsy-turvy obfuscating manner." - Synopsis of the paradoxical effect of nature webpage.
Note: Keywords highlighted in bold prints.
A naturally negated observation in its delusional manner, despite could subliminally manifest the observation paradox as was described with the geocentric model physical paradox, not all negated observations are demonstrated in the exact same manner.
Despite all subliminally manifested cognitive paradoxes turned out to be misleading for their empirical observations, they are not all demonstrated in the reversed condition as with the relative motion illusion physical paradox suffered by the geocentric model.
The "that which is not" description of a scientific model, is categorically a physical paradox.
Despite it could be argued that the Sun approximated as the center of the Solar System is a simplification of the heliocentric model, it is nonetheless a physical paradox. As trivial as it might seem for its applications in astronomy, it must not be extrapolated to evaluate the cosmogony of the Solar System.
-
the heliocentric model stubbornly put forth by you in your arguments
I didn't talk about the heliocentric model.
I just pointed out that electrons don't orbit.
Now, let's see who was the first here to mention the word "heliocentric "
Looks like it was this fool:
And there are more physical paradoxes about the Solar System as described with the heliocentric model, which mainstream planetary science are fallaciously based upon to describe planetary orbit.
Feel free to explain to him how wrong he is.
I will highlight two relevant cognitive paradoxes of the Solar System
It's irrelevant because electrons don't orbit.
So it doesn't matter if what they don't orbit is the nucleus or their combined CoG.
Now, can you please tell me what the paradox is?
-
The formation and evolution of the Solar System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System) is still an unsolved problem in the nebular hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis). And we must not pretend the heliocentric model is an impeccable science with its proven quantitative predictions for planetary orbits.
"The formation of planetesimals is the biggest unsolved problem in the nebular disk model. How 1 cm sized particles coalesce into 1 km planetesimals is a mystery." - snipped from the "Current issues" in the nebular hypothesis link.
Will jump to the developments of the atomic models a bit.
It was not the issue of Max Planck when Ernest Rutherford conceptualized an atomic model with electrons orbiting their nucleus, which in a way could be compared with the empirically observed Solar System. Rutherford nonetheless had contributed to the quantum mechanics on atomic nucleus, which extended the knowledge of JJ Thomson's plum pudding atomic model that was lacked of atomic nucleus.
So, to seek the resolution that could possibly reconcile the atomic world and Solar System with their cosmogonies, all preconceived ideas has to be put aside.
It is alright we keep our beliefs of what the mainstream physics postulates for the empirical observations of the Solar System. Nonetheless, to evaluate its actualities in the reality paradigm shift of the UVS research, one has to put preconceived ideas aside first before entering to evaluate the Solar System in the UVS worldview.
Of course you can always keep your beliefs with what are postulated with the heliocentric model, but while appraising the UVS treatise, please keep that subjective reality baggage outside, and you can always claim it back after leaving its evaluation.
I hope this is not difficult task or a tall order, but it is necessary to efficaciously appraise the UVS inductive resolutions of the Solar System and the atomic structure on how they could reconcile in a cosmic system.
Next, I will cover on the UVS inductive resolution on how the empirical observed planetary orbits are being form in the UVS worldview.
-
Now, let's see who was the first here to mention the word "heliocentric "
Looks like it was this fool:
It was this one who had first brought out the heliocentric animation for his argument in this thread:
There's an animation of it here.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession
Perfectly well sorted out.
-
I just pointed out that electrons don't orbit.
You are correct on electrons don't orbit.
But you were so thick when I kept telling you the premise of your this opinion was misplaced for the comparative analysis with your preconceived idea on planets are revolving in the Solar System in orbits. This is despite the planetary orbit concept is analytically correct in its subjective reality.
And you keep insisting on showing you the paradox in the way you could accept with the thrusted heliocentric model animation, oblivious to the physical paradox of the subliminal planetary orbitals of the Solar System negated from its apparent observation, which coalesces captured nebulous material as planets, and impel them to apparently orbit around the Sun.
In the UVS worldview, it was a cognitive paradox in the perception of the Solar System that obfuscates the underlying mechanism of what drives planetary orbits. The inductive resolution of the UVS research intends to show how this cognitive paradox obfuscates.
p.s. Have to get back to the mundane world for mundane stuff. Will post again with more details on the cognitive paradox in this thread when free time is available.
-
It was this one who had first brought out the heliocentric animation for his argument in this thread:
That doesn't mention or require heliocentrism.
So, it's not a heliocentric animation.
However, there's a reason why I introduced it.
You told me to do so.
You said "Try visualizing planetary orbital with the apsidal precession effect."
Don't blame me for doing what you suggested.
And we must not pretend the heliocentric model is an impeccable science with its proven quantitative predictions for planetary orbits.
Nobody did that. You are strawmanning.
So, to seek the resolution that could possibly reconcile the atomic world and Solar System with their cosmogonies, all preconceived ideas has to be put aside.
One idea that must be put aside is the idea that electrons orbit and thus we must also put aside the idea that atoms resemble the solar system.
BTW, are you a flat Earther?
I ask because the solar system is pretty nearly a flat disk, but atoms are pretty much spherical.
Had you not noticed that disparity?
Of course you can always keep your beliefs with what are postulated with the heliocentric model, but while appraising the UVS treatise, please keep that subjective reality baggage outside, and you can always claim it back after leaving its evaluation.
WITH OR WITHOUT HELIOCENTRISM; YOUR IDEA IS WRONG.
-
But you were so thick when I kept telling you the premise of your this opinion was misplaced for the comparative analysis with your preconceived idea on planets are revolving in the Solar System in orbits.
Does not parse.
Please try again
-
You told me to do so.You said "Try visualizing planetary orbital with the apsidal precession effect."Don't blame me for doing what you suggested.
Nope. You was not doing what I had suggested.
You instead brought out a heliocentric model and demanded an explanation with "where's the paradox".
Was just calling thing as it was, not blaming anyone.
Nobody did that. You are strawmanning.
Well, someone here did implied heliocentric model is an impeccable science:
Perfectly well sorted out.
BTW, are you a flat Earther?.
I ask because the solar system is pretty nearly a flat disk, but atoms are pretty much spherical.
Had you not noticed that disparity?
Flat Earthers believe the Earth is flat because they claim the Solar System is a nearly flat disk? Seriously?
This logic is non-sequitur. Flat Earthers generally believe in the geocentric universe instead of the heliocentrism.
Nope I am not a flat Earther, but I don't believe in the heliocentric universe either. And I would not bluntly present a heliocentric model of the Solar System and state it as "Perfectly well sorted out".
Does it not occur to you at all that the recently discovered heliosphere, is part of the Solar System structure?
And you still cannot visualize the ring torus orbitals of the major planets after being highlighted to you?
You were bluffing on "atoms are pretty much spherical". Only the simple atoms were thought as being spherical with the standard model.
WITH OR WITHOUT HELIOCENTRISM; YOUR IDEA IS WRONG.[/
As the presentation for the comparative analysis unfolds, we shall see to your this strongly decried opinion.
-
Does not parse.Please try again
From the UVS perspective, the Rutherford's electron is a resonant in its atom as a spinor force field of a torus transformed node that has had formed in its ring torus orbital.
The s-subshell of the Bohr's atom with a single electron, could be perceived as a intrinsically spinning spheroidal force field of a torus transformed orbital.
And the p-subshell of the Bohr's atom, could be perceived as a dual-core ring torus spinor force field formed by its dual-core spheroidal unisonal vortex resonated in its atomic hypersphere.
See the animation that illustrates on how a torus structure could transform (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sphere-like_degenerate_torus.gif).
Electrons by nature are not objects, they merely are discernable enough to be considered as objects in the standard model.
So when your took the apparent objects of the orbiting planets as the Solar System electrons literally in your analysis, they could never gel with the standard atomic model at all on several fronts.
From the UVS perspective, in a nutshell, the Solar System is encapsulated in the force field of a nested torus structure.
And all sorts of torus transformed force field could harmonically manifested in the Solar System.
Particularly, the vortically manifested nested ring torus spinor force fields of the planetary orbitals, could coalesce their captured nebulous materials to form the major planets of the Solar System.
The nested unisonal spheroidal vortex and its manifested orbitals are in fact there, and they actually matter, but apparently they are not there to matter at all. And this is definitely not illustrated in the standard heliocentric Solar System model.
The subliminally negated observation of the nested toroidal orbitals and their spinor force fields of the major planets in the Solar System, is a cognitive paradox that obfuscates on the actuality that underlies and drives the planets to orbit in the Solar System.
-
A nested torus force field in its two-axis spin, could accrete the scattered and revolving nebulous materials at the cyclonic vertexes of their two sets of criss-crossed ring torus force fields.
See this image of a digon (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digon) that illustrates the vertexes of two crisscrossed planes.
The vortical spin fusion dynamics cyclonically manifested at one of these vertexes, is an accreting spheroidal torus force field that could form a planet with the scattered and revolving nebulous materials into a precessing oblate spheroidal structure.
The conserved angular momentum of the scattered and revolving nebulous materials, impelled in the manifested ring torus force field, vortically coalesce to form as a planet to apparently orbit in the Solar System with apsidal motion that thus ascribe its ring torus orbital.
The comets that cut into the inner Solar System, are ascribing their spindle torus orbitals. And the comets that revolve outside the outer Solar System, are ascribing their spheroidal torus orbitals.
The evidence for the existences of these ring torus force fields with their captured nebulous materials, were recently being discovered. One of them is the Io plasma torus (https://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_picture.asp?id=1174), another one is the HL Tauri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HL_Tauri) planetary system.
The force fields of the planetary ring torus orbitals that subliminally drive major planets to orbit with apsidal precession to revolve in the Solar System, in a simplified manner, are comparable to the UVS atomic model postulated force fields of their vortically manifested ring torus orbitals that were encapsulated in their nested spheroidal unisonal vortices.
In the UVS worldview, the minute subatomic structures in the microcosms to the large celestial structures in the macrocosms, were all vortically formed with their resonated vortical spin fusion, which have had manifested in the closed system toroidal force fields of the hyperspheric vortical universe (https://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20the%20vortical%20universe%20model%20of%20UVS.htm) by its precession effects.
These perspectives of course are not precisely accurate, nevertheless they are the basis for the comparative analysis of the Solar System and the UVS atomic model in the UVS worldview.
Disclaimer: With limitations in the off-the-cuff expressions, their errors and omission errors.
-
The vortical spin fusion dynamics cyclonically manifested at one of these vertexes, is an accreting spheroidal torus force field that could form a planet with the scattered and revolving nebulous materials into a precessing oblate spheroidal structure.
For the onlookers who could be interested with the above UVS proposition, please see a UVS subtopic on "The vortically manifested planetary orbitals (https://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20evolve%20of%20stars%20and%20galaxies.htm#orbits)" for its inductive resolution to an unsolved problem stated in the nebular hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis).
-
Flat Earthers believe the Earth is flat because they claim the Solar System is a nearly flat disk? Seriously?
No.
That's a straw man you made up.
You keep trying to pretend that spherical atoms are the same as the disk shaped solar system.
Why do you do that?
And I would not bluntly present a heliocentric model of the Solar System and state it as "Perfectly well sorted out".
Nor did anyone else.
It's only you who has said that cartoon is heliocentric.
Nobody else has.
-
You keep trying to pretend that spherical atoms are the same as the disk shaped solar system.
Why do you do that?
Am sorry till now you still could not see the disk-shaped structure of the Solar System, is a spheroidal torus transformed substructure of the Solar System.
Evidently, the encapsulating spheroidal structures of planetary systems with their inner disk-shaped substructures, have also been observed in several planetary nebulae of their demised stars.
Its alright you have to hold on tight to your beliefs, but please don't bring your preconceived ideas into this thread and insist on their propositions are absolutely facts, which they are not.
Also, your accusations in your posts in this thread are non-sequitur, so will not be responding to such opinions, which sound like a broken record that circularly tout incomplete concepts as factual.
Nobody here except you was comparing the heliocentric orbiting planets with the electrons of the standard atomic model with your tautology.
And people should instead wonder why you do that.
Can anyone explain to him the disparity?
-
Nobody here except you was comparing the heliocentric orbiting planets with the electrons of the standard atomic model with your tautology.
Where did I say anything about heliocentrism?
What I said was very simple.
Electrons don't orbit.
so the idea that atoms resemble the solar system is simply wrong.
Am sorry till now you still could not see the disk-shaped structure of the Solar System, is a spheroidal torus transformed substructure of the Solar System.
No it is not.
Most of the mass of the Solar system is in the Sun i.e. in the middle.
A torus has a hole in the middle.
You are plainly wrong.
Evidently, the encapsulating spheroidal structures of planetary systems with their inner disk-shaped substructures, have also been observed in several planetary nebulae of their demised stars.
Citation needed.
"And people should instead wonder why you do that."
No.
Most people realise that I didn't do it.
If you think I did, please point out where, so I can try to explain your mistake.
Its alright you have to hold on tight to your beliefs, but please don't bring your preconceived ideas into this thread and insist on their propositions are absolutely facts, which they are not.
You should look in the mirror.
-
Where did I say anything about heliocentrism?What I said was very simple.Electrons don't orbit.so the idea that atoms resemble the solar system is simply wrong.
-
Where did I say anything about heliocentrism?
With or without saying the word, the planetary system animation your presented, is obviously based on heliocentrism. Why did you keep denying that with all your side stepping?
What I said was very simple.
Electrons don't orbit.so the idea that atoms resemble the solar system is simply wrong.
That obviously was your comparative analysis of your nearly a flat disk Solar System model and the standard atomic model; you are muddling with your comparative analysis of your preconceived ideas to argue in this thread on a misplaced premise.
Most of the mass of the Solar system is in the Sun i.e. in the middle.
A torus has a hole in the middle.
You are plainly wrong.
Was that how you were taught to do deductive analysis?
This can't be seriously reckoned or respond to; face palm.
Citation needed.
Seriously? The nearly a flat disk Solar System concept was dragged in by you, not me.
Just stating the obvious. And it is not difficult to google to look for "Spherical planetary nebulae" if you are seriously interested.
And it is not as if the spherical heliosphere was just discovered yesterday.
Any average Joe would have the cognizance that the heliosphere is a structure of the Solar System.
Anyway, here is a NASA link that reports on the spherical heliosphere (https://www.disclose.tv/our-solar-system-is-protected-by-a-massive-spherical-shield-nasa-study-314092).
You should look in the mirror.
No need. I would not irrelevantly drag in the concept of nearly a flat disk Solar System into the thread and stubbornly imposed it to the comparative analysis.
-
With or without saying the word, the planetary system animation your presented, is obviously based on heliocentrism. Why did you keep denying that with all your side stepping?
I deny it for a simple reason. It's not true.
The pixel size in that animation isn't small enough to say whether its heliocentric or not.
To say it is "obviously" heliocentric is simply a lie.
And, as everybody but you understands, I only posted that animation because you asked about it.
That obviously was your comparative analysis of your nearly a flat disk Solar System model and the standard atomic model
No
It is an entirely separate point.
There are two issues which show that you are wrong
The Solar system does not look like an atom because it is the wrong shape (It is flat not spherical)
The solar system does not look like an atom because electrons don't orbit.
Do you see that each of those two things is enough to show that you are wrong?
Was that how you were taught to do deductive analysis?
No.
It is how I was taught the difference between a donut and a muffin.
A donut has a hole in it and is toroidal a muffin does not (there are , of course other differences).
The point remains that a 3 year old could explain why you are wrong to think that the solar system is toroidal.
And it is not difficult to google to look for "Spherical planetary nebulae" if you are seriously interested.
I know what one is.
What I asked for was evidence of your claim. (You said "encapsulating spheroidal structures of planetary systems with their inner disk-shaped substructures, ")
I see that, once again, you have failed to back up your idea.
What's the evidence of the " disk-shaped substructures, "?
And it is not as if the spherical heliosphere was just discovered yesterday.
No it's not.
So why are you trying to pretend it's a torus?
I would not irrelevantly drag in the concept of nearly a flat disk Solar System into the thread
It's hardly irrelevant since it's one of the (many) things which shows that you are wrong.
But, if you looked in the mirror you would see what everyone else does; you are the one holding to preconceived ideas, even after it's clear they make no sense.
-
I deny it for a simple reason. It's not true.The pixel size in that animation isn't small enough to say whether its heliocentric or not.To say it is "obviously" heliocentric is simply a lie.And, as everybody but you understands, I only posted that animation because you asked about it.
Simply a lie? Really?
No body asked you to post that animation.
You deliberately posted it as "perfectly well sorted out" to demand its "paradox" explained.
And then you lied that I presented it in the OP, anyone except you can clearly see this.
You have no cognizance that the heliocentric model is not factual until several members tried to tell you.
Then you switched to say that its an approximation, totally forgot your claim that the presented heliocentric model animation was "perfectly well sorted out".
And then you again lied by switching to say I asked you about it, so that was the reason you posted it, admitting to your lie saying I presented it in the OP.
Then you tried to deceived with semantic that that animation is not a heliocentric model, despite it clearly is an animation of a simplified heliocentric model as explained by another member.
And now you even brazenly pull in on pixel size to deny it, which is a deliberated dishonesty in broad daylight.
How many more lies are you going to tell with your denial?
You are really remarkable with the deceptions you had demonstrated in this thread.
There are two issues which show that you are wrong
The Solar system does not look like an atom because it is the wrong shape (It is flat not spherical)
The solar system does not look like an atom because electrons don't orbit.
Do you see that each of those two things is enough to show that you are wrong?
This two things show the comparative analysis you made up, is wrong.
And that was your comparative analysis, not mine. What a straw.
It is how I was taught the difference between a donut and a muffin.
A donut has a hole in it and is toroidal a muffin does not (there are , of course other differences).
The point remains that a 3 year old could explain why you are wrong to think that the solar system is toroidal.
Your inability to understand all naturally formed solar system objects are torus structures, is your problem.
Don't shift your problem to a 3 year old.
I know what one is.
What I asked for was evidence of your claim. (You said "encapsulating spheroidal structures of planetary systems with their inner disk-shaped substructures, ")
I see that, once again, you have failed to back up your idea.
What's the evidence of the " disk-shaped substructures, "?
No you don't. It was you who claimed the Solar System is "nearly a flat disk", so it was you who actually have failed to back up your idea.
I was merely suggesting you to check your fact.
So where is the evidence of the heliosphere encapsulated Solar System not a spheroidal structure?
So why are you trying to pretend it's a torus?
That's a goof question.
It instead should be, why are you pretending the Solar System is "nearly a flat disk"?
you are the one holding to preconceived ideas, even after it's clear they make no sense.
No, you are holding to your delusion that the Solar System is "nearly a flat disk", even after it's clear that this is your preconceived idea of your fallacious comparative analysis.
Oh man! That don't even qualify as a physical paradox that has true value.
-
I admit that I do not see a paradox either.
Please have a look at the UVS topics on "Heliosphere (https://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20heliosphere.htm)", and "The vortically manifested planetary orbitals (https://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20evolve%20of%20stars%20and%20galaxies.htm#orbits)".
Can you now see the other cognitive paradox with the postulated planetary orbitals that are subliminally negated from observations?
IMO, this could resolve the unsolved problems of the nebular hypothesis.
-
Simply a lie?
Yes, unless you can show that it is"is obviously based on heliocentrism.
No body asked you to post that animation.
Nobody said you had.
However, you did say
Try visualizing planetary orbital with the apsidal precession effect.
So I tried visualising it- with the help of an animation- and I posted it.
And then you lied that I presented it in the OP,
No, I did not.
If you think I did, please quote what I said.
You have no cognizance that the heliocentric model is not factual
I pointed out that it was contrafactual in my first post in this thread.
And that was your comparative analysis, not mine.
Strictly it was someone else's- but you cited it.
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together." - Max Planck
I just pointed out that it's wrong.
The atom and the solar system are different in two very important ways.
Atoms are spherical. the solar system is not.
Planets orbit; electrons don't.
Your inability to understand all naturally formed solar system objects are torus structures, is your problem.
Don't shift your problem to a 3 year old.
Do you not know what shape a torus is?
I'm not shifting my problem to a 3 year old.
I wish I was.
My problem is you, and your inability to understand the obvious.
I would expect a 3 year old to make more progress than you have.
No you don't. It was you who claimed the Solar System is "nearly a flat disk", so it was you who actually have failed to back up your idea.
I was merely suggesting you to check your fact
I thought all grown ups knew this.
"The solar system is indeed very flat,"
https://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/public/ask/3088
Were you so busy telling me to check my facts that you forgot to check your own?
-
No, you are holding to your delusion that the Solar System is "nearly a flat disk", even after it's clear that this is your preconceived idea of your fallacious comparative analysis.
LOL
I'm not the deluded one here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk#Planetary_system
-
Can you now see the other cognitive paradox with the postulated planetary orbitals that are subliminally negated from observations?
There is a paradox with your ideas.
That's because they are wrong.
-
No, I did not.
If you think I did, please quote what I said.
Here:
You presented it in the OP.
Yet another lie of BC was proven.
I just pointed out that it's wrong. The atom and the solar system are different in two very important ways.
Atoms are spherical. the solar system is not.
Planets orbit; electrons don't.
No. Your points were misplaced.
Those were your false equivalence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence) fallacies made up in the delusion of your fallacious comparative analysis.
Do you not know what shape a torus is?
I'm not shifting my problem to a 3 year old.
I wish I was.
My problem is you, and your inability to understand the obvious.
I would expect a 3 year old to make more progress than you have.
That was yet another goof question, which is your problem.
You have no cognizance of what are torus structures, which entail the transformed structures in the forms of ring torus, horn torus, spindle torus, and spheroidal torus.
You were shifting your problem to the 3 year old. Even a 3 year old could grasp better than you.
I thought all grown ups knew this.
"The solar system is indeed very flat,"
https://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/public/ask/3088
Heliosphere was not mentioned at all in the postulated Solar System, the way these experts draw the conclusion on Solar System "is indeed very flat", qualifies them as being deluded in their cargo cult science.
Even a 3 year old could see the heliosphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere#/media/File:72408main_ACD97-0036-1.jpg) is a Solar System structure, whereas these deluded "experts" and their believers were oblivious to.
Strictly it was someone else's- but you cited it.
Of course its not mine. And I never cited it at all in the ways your were putting it.
It was your fallacious comparative analysis you had bought in to muddle with my comparative analysis.
-
Yet another lie of BC was proven.
OK, what I said was that you presented the heliocentric model in the OP.
And I quoted the bit where you said it.
You said "minute solar system"
Lets see what the quote from the OP was.
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together."
And, since the atom is symmetrical wrt the nucleus, you are saying - by quoting that comparison- that the solar system is symmetrical WRT the Sun.
And that means I was correct to say that you said, in the OP, that the solar system is, like an atom, centrosymmetric.
You can't say "the solar system is shaped like an atom" without saying that, like the atom, it is centrosymmetric.
Had you somehow forgotten that you had cited the quote that says the atom is shaped like the solar system and vice versa?
There's not much point addressing anything else until you remember what you wrote, and accept that you said the solar system was shaped like an atom.
-
Quote from: Paradigmer on 12/06/2019 16:23:25Yet another lie of BC was proven.
OK, what I said was that you presented the heliocentric model in the OP.And I quoted the bit where you said it. You said "minute solar system"Lets see what the quote from the OP was.
Quote from: Paradigmer on 24/05/2019 06:33:43"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together."
And, since the atom is symmetrical wrt the nucleus, you are saying - by quoting that comparison- that the solar system is symmetrical WRT the Sun. And that means I was correct to say that you said, in the OP, that the solar system is, like an atom, centrosymmetric. You can't say "the solar system is shaped like an atom" without saying that, like the atom, it is centrosymmetric. Had you somehow forgotten that you had cited the quote that says the atom is shaped like the solar system and vice versa? There's not much point addressing anything else until you remember what you wrote, and accept that you said the solar system was shaped like an atom.
Lots of word, none matters.
Your out of context gibberish talks only have asserted the deceptions you had demonstrated in this thread.
-
Your out of context gibberish talks only have asserted the deceptions you had demonstrated in this thread.
You start by quoting something that's wrong.
When someone points that out, you accuse them of deception.
There's not much point addressing anything else until you remember what you wrote, and accept that you said the solar system was shaped like an atom.
-
You start by quoting something that's wrong.When someone points that out, you accuse them of deception.
Max Planck was not comparing planetary orbits with electron motions, he simply mentioned a force that brings the particle of an atom to vibration in his comparative analysis of the atom with the Solar System.
You made up your fallacious comparative analysis to frame-up and insinuate Max Planck.
And everything you had posted here were either wrong or irrelevant; so lame.
And now you are playing victim; you are so full of drama.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2019 19:24:07There's not much point addressing anything else until you remember what you wrote, and accept that you said the solar system was shaped like an atom.
I will miss your very funny gobbledygook. LOL.
-
Max Planck was not comparing planetary orbits with electron motions,
Well, what he said was this
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.
and I think people will see " solar system of the atom " as saying that he was comparing them.
You made up your fallacious comparative analysis to frame-up and insinuate Max Planck.
That's silly.
Planck is dead.
He's not posting here, and he never will.
I'm saying YOU got it wrong.
And everything you had posted here were either wrong or irrelevant; so lame.
Explaining that electrons don't orbit is relevant, because it shows that your idea is wrong.
And now you are playing victim; you are so full of drama.
I'm plainly not a victim, nor playing one.
You might lie about me, but I know that anyone else reading this will be laughing at you.You have no cognizance of what are torus structures, which entail the transformed structures in the forms of ring torus, horn torus, spindle torus, and spheroidal torus.
You really don't know what a torus is, do you?
-
and I think people will see " solar system of the atom " as saying that he was comparing them.
Of course he was comparing an atom with the Solar System.
But unlike you, he did not compared electrons to the orbiting planets of a heliocentric model in a "nearly flat disk" Solar System.
Can anyone tell BC the disparity?
That's silly.
Planck is dead.
He's not posting here, and he never will.
This is your classical non-sequitur logic you had demonstrated throughout in this thread.
You definitely had frame-up the quote of Max Planck to insinuate him with your fallacious opinions.
I'm plainly not a victim, nor playing one.
You might lie about me, but I know that anyone else reading this will be laughing at you.
Oh really? The anyone must be from the cohort of your cargo cult science group.
You really don't know what a torus is, do you?
Is it? Can you show us what you think a torus is?
-
he was comparing an atom with the Solar System.
But unlike you, he did not compared electrons to the orbiting planets
LOL
So, it's the solar system, but not the solar system.
Make up your mind.
The anyone must be from the cohort of your cargo cult science group.
Thus far, 4 people have participated in this thread, you, and three scientists who all agree that you are wrong.
Isn't it time you learned from that?
The rest of your post isn't really worth wasting time on.
-
So, it's the solar system, but not the solar system.Make up your mind.
You were not honest and was proven, you honestly admitted to you were dishonest, but then you were dishonest with your honesty. You clearly were running episodes of cognitive dissonance with the conflictions of your dishonesty and honesty; you must have had lost your mind.
Thus far, 4 people have participated in this thread, you, and three scientists who all agree that you are wrong.
Isn't it time you learned from that?
Get this right: You are the only person here who believes your beliefs are absolutely factual; so far no one else participated in this thread had agreed with your beliefs.
Honest scientists have their wealth of knowledge to learn from, but I can't say this for all.
Where is the proof for your claim on torus?
I see that, as always, you have failed to back up all the stuff here you had made up.
The rest of your post isn't really worth wasting time on.
No one needs your delusional beliefs and gibberish here, so please don't waste people's time.
-
You were not honest and was proven
That's one of the more ironic lies.
you honestly admitted to you were dishonest
I have admitted no such thing.
Nor would I.
I haven't been dishonest.
It's you who keeps making impossible claims which you should know are not true.
You clearly were running episodes of cognitive dissonance with the conflictions of your dishonesty and honesty;
Nope.
I assure you , I'm still just as clear on the issue as I always was.
You said stuff that wasn't true; I pointed that out.
you must have had lost your mind.
You have, of course, no actual evidence to support that sily claim.
so far no one else participated in this thread had agreed with your beliefs.
They agreed with me that you are wrong.
You can not know if they agreed with my views or not, since they didn't address that matter.
However, it's not unreasonable to say (based on past experience) that, if they thought I was wrong, they would say so..
Why are they not telling me I'm wrong like they are telling you that you are wrong?
Where is the proof for your claim on torus?
You want proof that a torus has a hole?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torus#/media/File:Torus.svg
Do you understand that most of the mass of the Solar system is the Sun, it's pretty near spherical, and it's in more or less the middle of the solar system?
Can you show me a torus with that distribution of material?
-
They agreed with me that you are wrong.
No they did not.
You can not know if they agreed with my views or not, since they didn't address that matter. However, it's not unreasonable to say (based on past experience) that, if they thought I was wrong, they would say so..
They both agreed that scientific models are not absolutely factual.
Which were implying you were wrong on your "perfectly well sorted out" fact.
I assure you , I'm still just as clear on the issue as I always was.
You said stuff that wasn't true; I pointed that out.
Negative. You still were not clear on the issue at all as you always were stuck in your delusions.
You were confused with what is valid and what is true.
You want proof that a torus has a hole?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torus#/media/File:Torus.svg
I asked you to show me what you think torus is, and you showed a solid torus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_torus) as was suspected after you talked about doughnut.
These are the definition and explanation of torus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torus) from the Wiki page:
"In geometry, a torus (plural tori) is a surface of revolution generated by revolving a circle in three-dimensional space about an axis coplanar with the circle. "
"A torus should not be confused with a solid torus, which is formed by rotating a disc, rather than a circle, around an axis. "
"In topology, a ring torus is homeomorphic to the Cartesian product of two circles:"
"As the distance to the axis of revolution decreases, the ring torus becomes a horn torus, then a spindle torus, and finally degenerates into a sphere."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torus#/media/File:Sphere-like_degenerate_torus.gif
Your goof is again proven.
Do you understand that most of the mass of the Solar system is the Sun, it's pretty near spherical, and it's in more or less the middle of the solar system?
Can you show me a torus with that distribution of material?
You failed to see the cognitive paradox of planetary orbit after it was explained to you, and now you were confused on the Sun is not a torus, which was caused by your misinterpretation of a torus is a solid ring torus with a hole at the center.
I will try to off the cuff explain a bit here, but I don't think you would ever get it at all with all your preconceived ideas you could never let go.
It is a fact that the mass center of the Sun orbits the barycenter of the Solar System, and with the barycenter effects of the gas giants, the Sun revolves around the barycenter and ascribes its meandering ring torus orbital.
It does seem that you are a hardcore heliocentrist, which explains why you could not envision the orbital of the Sun at all.
Scattered nebulous materials captured in this meandering ring torus orbital of the primeval Solar System, were coalesced as the Sun in a spheroidal torus force field that has had manifested at a cyclonic vertex of the ring torus orbital with the precessing two-axis spin of the Solar System.
The spheroidal structure of the Sun was formed in the vortical spin fusion of this vortically manifested spheroidal torus force field.
There are more stuff involved but I will stop short here on the distribution of material by a naturally manifested torus force field in its homeomorphic forms.
-
No they did not.
Yes they did.
They pointed out a number of issues where you were simply wrong.
You keep talking about a paradox that doesn't exist.
... I do not see a paradox either.
That's not a paradox.
Having studied physics for the last 60 years, I have not come across a single "paradox" that was anything but a misunderstanding on the part of the proposer.
Why do you keep talking about physical paradoxes
Why do you keep talking about physical paradoxes when we have repeatedly agreed with you that the Sun isn't the exact center of the Solar System?
Well the heliocentric model that you have presented is not the model that modern scientists use, so it's irrelevant.
Those "paradoxes" (which isn't even the right word to use) don't exist in the model that includes barycenters, which is what scientists actually use.
'm referring to your characterization of the heliocentric model as claiming that the Sun is at the exact center of the Solar System. That isn't what modern astronomers mean when they use the term.
-
"As the distance to the axis of revolution decreases, the ring torus becomes a horn torus, then a spindle torus, and finally degenerates into a sphere."
And a large enough sphere is equivalent to a plane.
But only an idiot would describe a plane as a torus without making the point that they were referring to the special case of a torus that's not really toroidal.
However, to a good approximation, the Solar system is a disk, it's not modelled by any of the family of toroids.
So you are still wrong.The spheroidal structure of the Sun was formed in the vortical spin fusion of this vortically manifested spheroidal torus force field.
That's just word salad.
-
They pointed out a number of issues where you were simply wrong.You keep talking about a paradox that doesn't exist.
You are the one who keep talking about paradox.
Those comments from the two members were misled by your idea on paradox.
And if you read them carefully, they were saying you must not consider the scientific model as absolutely factual, and that is simply wrong.
Nonetheless, the cognitive paradoxes of the empirically observed Solar System were addressed.
It is a fact that the Sun is not the center of the Solar System, and that model was very lack of the orbital structures that the Solar System objects are ascribing.
-
And a large enough sphere is equivalent to a plane.But only an idiot would describe a plane as a torus without making the point that they were referring to the special case of a torus that's not really toroidal.However, to a good approximation, the Solar system is a disk, it's not modelled by any of the family of toroids.
All these are your gibberish.
-
And a large enough sphere is equivalent to a plane.But only an idiot would describe a plane as a torus without making the point that they were referring to the special case of a torus that's not really toroidal.However, to a good approximation, the Solar system is a disk, it's not modelled by any of the family of toroids.
All these are your gibberish.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it gibberish.
Do you understand that the limit of a large sphere is a plane?
Those comments from the two members were misled by your idea on paradox.
So, what you are saying is that you managed to be so unclear that all of us thought you were talking about a paradox.
That's probably because you said this
planetary orbit is an incomplete concept, and it is a physical paradox that does not reflect the orbital it entails.
Did you say paradox, but mean something else?
I thought we had checked on that possibility.
So, the problem is easily solved.
We just need to explain to you that the word "paradox" does not mean what you think it does.
Nonetheless, the cognitive paradoxes of your heliocentric animation were addressed.
The animation is not heliocentric and it is not mine.
There's also no paradox involved there.
On account of that, there's no way you can address it.
So that's 4 mistakes in one sentence.
-
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it gibberish.Do you understand that the limit of a large sphere is a plane?
This is just another fallacy of four terms you introduced to muddle your arguments like you had been doing all the while in this thread.
So, what you are saying is that you managed to be so unclear that all of us thought you were talking about a paradox.
Negative. It was you who had managed to mislead others with your misplaced idea of paradox.
Did you say paradox, but mean something else?
I thought we had checked on that possibility.
That paradox was introduced by you.
Yes, that goof was checked and also conclusively debunked.
The animation is not heliocentric and it is not mine.
There's also no paradox involved there.
On account of that, there's no way you can address it.
So that's 4 mistakes in one sentence.
Even a three year old knows it is a heliocentric animation, and your lame excuses cannot deny that.
No one say the animation is done by you, it was an animation presented by you, and this could be easily understood by any person with a sane mind.
No body said it is paradox like the way you are muddling it, but the animation was clearly explained to have had suffered two physical paradoxes for what it is depicting. And these were further elaborated that they are as a result of two of its cognitive paradoxes, which are subliminally rendered to obfuscate in the related empirical observations.
So all these three mistakes are yours, not mine.
And a three year old can count better than you.
-
Do you understand that the limit of a large sphere is a plane?
-
Even a three year old knows it is a heliocentric animation
How?
-
And a large enough sphere is equivalent to a plane.But only an idiot would describe a plane as a torus without making the point that they were referring to the special case of a torus that's not really toroidal. However, to a good approximation, the Solar system is a disk, it's not modelled by any of the family of toroids.
All these are your gibberish.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it gibberish.
Do you understand that the limit of a large sphere is a plane?
Since you are so thick on this, I would dissect it for you:
Negative, the limit of a large sphere is not a plane.
You are muddling the mathematically postulated infinite large sphere is a plane with your gibberish.
It's clear who was the idiot.
Do you know the fact that the circumstellar disc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstellar_disc) is a torus?
So now, can you explain to us why is your idea on "the limit of a large sphere is a plane" is at all relevant?
-
Even a three year old knows it is a heliocentric animation
How?
All scientists knew the postulated elliptical orbit (in the animation you showed), is fundamentally based on Kepler's laws of planetary motion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion), which is basically a Sun centric model.
Modern astronomy made all sorts of modifiers on it, such as adopts the reference frame of the IAU barycentric celestial reference system, patch with the resolved gravitational two-body problem, etc, does not make it a true n-body barycentric model of the Solar System.
A truth barycentric model of the Solar System, has to be rebuilt from scrap with the physics of n-body system, which hitherto has been mission impossible for whatsoever reasons.
Anybody who knew there is one such planetarium system available, please let me know.
But all scientists knew the contemporary IAU Solar System model was a simplification to fit its barycentric observations for pragmatic applications, and so do not consider the barycentric coordination deviation of the heliocentric Solar System model to be absolutely factual.
You apparently was not one of them with your approximated but "perfectly sorted out" animation, which implies absolutely factual.
-
All scientists knew the postulated elliptical orbit (in the animation you showed), is fundamentally based on Kepler's laws of planetary motion, which is basically a Sun centric model.
No
Clearly the scientists who came up with corrections- notably Einstein but there are many others- knew that you can't absolutely rely on Kepler's laws.
However, if you actually plotted out, as an animation, the best available models of the solar system, the deviation from heliocentric is so small that it would be impossible to tell the difference.
You are complaining that someone used a simplified model- in circumstances where a better one would look identical.
Are you also going to complain that the sun isn't mde of red and green pixels?
That animation doesn't say anything about heliocentricity.
That's something you have made up. (If you don't accept that simple fact, show where it says anything about heliocentricity)
the limit of a large sphere is not a plane.
... the mathematically postulated infinite large sphere is a plane
Come back when you make up your mind.
However, in reality, as you say the limit of a large sphere is a plane.
And the limiting case of a torus is a sphere.
So, at least one limiting case of a torus is a plane.
But it's still stupid to say that donuts are planar.
And it's equally stupid to say that the solar system is toroidal.
Do you know the fact that the circumstellar disc is a torus?
So now, can you explain to us why is your idea on "the limit of a large sphere is a plane" is at all relevant?
A donut is also a torus.
So now, can you explain to us why is your idea on "the limit of a large sphere is a plane" is at all relevant?
Saying that the solar system is sphere and so it is a toroid is true.
But it's also true to say that a plane is also a sphere (of infinite size) so a plane is a toroid.
Once you do that you can say that almost everything is a toroid.
And once you do that, the word toroid becomes useless.
The Solar system is not the circumstellar disk, is it?
"So now, can you explain to us why is your idea on "the limit of a large sphere is a plane" the circumstellar disk is at all relevant?"
-
That animation doesn't say anything about heliocentricity.
How can you be so silly on the postulated elliptical orbit (in the animation you showed), is not anything but heliocentric?
However, in reality, as you say the limit of a large sphere is a plane.
And the limiting case of a torus is a sphere.
So, at least one limiting case of a torus is a plane.
Gibberish! And you had sprouted more gibberish to explain your gibberish.
You actually are the one who had said "the limit of a large sphere is a plane". What a lie!
Your opinion on "the limit of a large sphere is a plane", is not true.
You have no cognizance the mathematically postulated infinitely large sphere is a plane in your muddling, is not a reality. You really have lost your mind.
That's three nonsense in your one sentence.
-
Your opinion on "the limit of a large sphere is a plane", is not true.
You said it was.
the mathematically postulated infinite large sphere is a plane
It's not clear why you introduced heliocentrism anyway, so all this silly argument (where you tried to pretend that you were not the first to mention it) is a red herring
Electrons don't orbit.
-
You are complaining that someone used a simplified model- in circumstances where a better one would look identical.Are you also going to complain that the sun isn't mde of red and green pixels?
Not complaining. Just pointing out your mistakes.
Your opinion on "the limit of a large sphere is a plane", is not true.
You said it was.
the mathematically postulated infinite large sphere is a plane
That was a lie with your contextomy.
You either cannot differential a large sphere and a mathematically postulated infinite large sphere, or you are muddling it to fallaciously justify your lie.
It's not clear why you introduced heliocentrism anyway, so all this silly argument (where you tried to pretend that you were not the first to mention it) is a red herring
It's clear it was you who introduced the heliocentric animation with elliptical orbit.
And you had side stepped it as an approximation while insistently asked to show the "paradox" of your "perfectly well sorted out" animation.
Anyone can see the animation was called out for what it was; it explicitly is an heliocentric animation. And then two of its multifarious physical paradoxes were properly addressed, which also thus rebuke your goof ideas on "paradox".
Electrons don't orbit.
No one here said electrons orbit, not Max Planck either. You were definitely strawmaning.
Hint: Max Planck said "a force".
But looking at how you reason with your non sequitur stuff to slander Max Planck, don't think you could ever grasp it at all.
-
You either cannot differential a large sphere and a mathematically postulated infinite large sphere, or you are muddling it to fallaciously justify your lie.
No.
You can not read or you don't know what a limit is (or you are lying).
Do you understand that the limit of a large sphere is a plane?
-
For the benefits of the onlookers reading this thread, not only many planetary systems have demonstrated such quite flattened circumstellar disks of torus, even a galaxy was empirically observed to have demonstrated an inner flattened disk of its ring torus structure:
https://www.almaobservatory.org/en/press-release/alma-observes-a-rotating-dust-and-gas-donut-around-a-supermassive-black-hole/
-
You either cannot differential a large sphere and a mathematically postulated infinite large sphere, or you are muddling it to fallaciously justify your lie.
No.You can not read or you don't know what a limit is (or you are lying).
Do you understand that the limit of a large sphere is a plane?
Anyone besides you could understand the idea of "the mathematically postulated infinite large sphere is a plane" is not mine. It was merely used to contrast the mistake of your idea with your adulterated version with large sphere, which was used to claim that proposition made in the subjective reality of its mathematical realm that postulates an infinitely large sphere. You obviously had confused reality with the subjective reality of a mathematical realm.
You failed to convinced your this four terms fallacy is relevant at all, and I am also not interested at all with your mathematical realm you had misplaced as reality.
-
Anyone besides you could understand the idea of "the mathematically postulated infinite large sphere is a plane" is not mine
Nobody said it was.
It was merely used to contrast the mistake of your idea with your adulterated version with large sphere,
Do you really not understand the difference between "a large sphere" which you try to pretend that I referred to and "the limit of a large sphere" which I actually referred to and which is, in fact, a plane?
-
Meanwhile, electrons still don't orbit.
-
You obviously had confused reality with the subjective reality of a mathematical realm.
Says a man who thinks that a sphere is a torus and a disk is a torus too.
-
Do you really not understand the difference between "a large sphere" which you try to pretend that I referred to and "the limit of a large sphere" which I actually referred to and which is, in fact, a plane?
You can start a new thread on this if you wish to discuss your idea with others.
Am not interested with your opinion on this.
-
Meanwhile, electrons still don't orbit.
So are the planetary orbitals.
And you are making motherhood statement.
-
You obviously had confused reality with the subjective reality of a mathematical realm.
Says a man who thinks that a sphere is a torus and a disk is a torus too.
Nay.
Said by a person who did not mixed up reality with the mathematical realm of an infinitely large sphere and its imaginary plane. Anyone suggesting this has had absolutely lost his mind in the abstract of his reified mathematical delusion.
-
Nobody said it was.
So why did you lied?
You said it was.
-
Am not interested with your opinion on this.
Then don't lie about it.
Said by a person who did not mixed up reality with the mathematical realm of an infinitely large sphere and its imaginary plane. Anyone suggesting this has had absolutely lost his mind in the abstract of his reified mathematical delusion.
Said by a person who did not mixed up reality with the mathematical realm of a sphere and imaginary torus. Anyone suggesting this has had absolutely lost his mind in the abstract of his reified mathematical delusion.
And you are making motherhood statement.
That seems to have lost something in translation.
Specifically, it seems to have lost any meaning.
So are the planetary orbitals.
Ditto.
However, no matter how much nonsense you talk, electrons still don't orbit.
-
Nobody said it was.
So why did you lied?
You said it was.
Nobody said it was your idea.
But you did say it (after I had put the idea forward, and you had accepted it).
How did you come to the conclusion that I was lying?
Did you just not understand?
-
That seems to have lost something in translation.
Specifically, it seems to have lost any meaning.
http://wiki.c2.com/?MotherhoodStatement
Go read up on this to understand the fallacy of your tautology that sounded like a broken record player.
-
Nobody said it was your idea.
But you did say it (after I had put the idea forward, and you had accepted it).
Nope. I did not accept your idea at all.
I was merely pointing out your mistake on mixing sphere with that mathematical idea of infinite sphere, and thus your fallacy of converse with its subsumed proposition on the mathematical plane is incorrectly referred to a large sphere.
Got it?
-
Why are you allowed to say that a torus is mathematically equivalent to a sphere, but I am not allowed to say that a plane is mathematically equivalent to a sphere? Why is it a "mistake" when I do it, but OK when you do it?
Both statements are true- in the limit.
Neither of them is helpful as a description of the solar system.
In any event, the solar system isn't toroidal (not least, because it's not spherical).
And electrons still don't orbit.
-
http://wiki.c2.com/?MotherhoodStatement
Go read up on this to understand the fallacy of your tautology that sounded like a broken record player.
Why did you introduce the relevant notion of motherhood and apple pie?
The fact is you quoted the idea that the solar system is like an atom.
It isn't
Electrons don't orbit, but planets do.
Do you accept that electrons do not orbit the nucleus?
-
Nope. I did not accept your idea at all.
You keep repeating it.
the mathematical realm of an infinitely large sphere and its imaginary plane.
infinite large sphere is a plane
-
Said by a person who did not mixed up reality with the mathematical realm of a sphere and imaginary torus. Anyone suggesting this has had absolutely lost his mind in the abstract of his reified mathematical delusion.
You are sprouting nonsense like you always did.
Torus structures of celestial objects have had been empirically observed.
You could not accept it is your problems, go tell those astronomers they are mixing up reality if you reject their discoveries. Why are you ranting on it in this thread?
BTW, when I don't respond to your gibberish, it doesn't mean I accept the concept you put forth at all.
Don't be so self entitled.
-
The fact is you quoted the idea that the solar system is like an atom.
It isn't
Electrons don't orbit, but planets do.
Do you accept that electrons do not orbit the nucleus?
Comparing electrons to orbiting planets is your idea, not mine.
I agree with electrons don't orbit.
The UVS comparative analysis is comparing the postulated torus force fields of planetary orbitals, with the the postulated torus force fields of the UVS atomic model that formed the electrons.
Nobody here except you were comparing orbiting planets with electrons!
-
Comparing electrons to orbiting planets is your idea, not mine.
Then why did you post it at the very start of this thread?
this most minute solar system of the atom
-
Then why did you post it at the very start of this thread?
this most minute solar system of the atom
IMO, that was a very profound insight of Max Planck for his ontology of atom with the cosmogony of the Solar System.
My comparative analysis of the UVS postulated Solar System model and atomic model, agrees with this insight of Max Planck.
-
IMO, that was a very profound insight of Max Planck for his ontology of atom with the cosmogony of the Solar System.
But it's wrong
-
IMO, that was a very profound insight of Max Planck for his ontology of atom with the cosmogony of the Solar System.
But it's wrong
That Max Planck quote emphasized on "only by virtue of a force".
The UVS postulated force fields that form the torus orbitals of an atom, is comparable to the postulated force fields that form the torus orbitals of the Solar System.
In the UVS worldview, an atom is indeed a minute Solar System as per Max Planck's description.
-
The UVS postulated force fields that form the torus orbitals of an atom,
Other than by dint of your bizarre notion that it's sensible to describe a sphere as a torus, no atomic orbital is toroidal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Orbitals_table
The "torus orbitals of an atom" you speak of simply do not exist.
That Max Planck quote emphasized on "only by virtue of a force".
It emphasises "a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together."
And no such force can exist because nothing holds "this most minute solar system of the atom together"
Because that solar system does not exist
because electrons don't orbit .
-
The UVS postulated force fields that form the torus orbitals of an atom, is comparable to the postulated force fields that form the torus orbitals of the Solar System.
The orbits that form the solar system are elliptical.
They are not tori.
So it makes no sense to talk about "the torus orbitals of the Solar System"
-
The UVS postulated force fields that form the torus orbitals of an atom,
Other than by dint of your bizarre notion that it's sensible to describe a sphere as a torus, no atomic orbital is toroidal.
You are evaluating the UVS comparative analysis in the paradigm of the standard model.
This is akin to a hardcore proponent of the geocentrism with its belief and all its preconceived ideas, is evaluating the Copernicus heliocentrism.
In this sense, how could any heliocentric proposition be sensible and not bizarre in the geocentric worldview?
The "torus orbitals of an atom" you speak of simply do not exist.
That Max Planck quote emphasized on "only by virtue of a force".
It emphasises "a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together."
And no such force can exist because nothing holds "this most minute solar system of the atom together"
Because that solar system does not exist
because electrons don't orbit .
By far in this thread I consider your this opinion is at least honest.
But in fact, the torus concepts of atom were very prevalent during Max Planck time.
Kelvin's vortex theory of the atom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin#Kelvin's_vortex_theory_of_the_atom) purported that an atom was a vortex in the aether, and this is very similar to the UVS atomic model. BTW, the mechanical explanations of gravitation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation), was first developed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690, and re-invented, among others, by Georges-Louis Le Sage (1748), Lord Kelvin (1872), and Hendrik Lorentz (1900).
How could anyone perceive the pushed-in torus force field with the contemporary concept of the Newtonian pulled-in gravitational force?
The toroidal ring model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroidal_ring_model), proposed by Alfred Lauck Parson in 1915, is a physical model of subatomic particles, known as the plasmoid ring, vortex ring, or helicon ring. It postulated ring torus orbitals for subatomic particles.
In the paradigm shift, the torus structured atomic model, is comparable with the torus structured Solar System model. IMO, the UVS torus structured Solar System model, completes the nebular hypothesis. I could later elaborate on the empirical evidence with the new astronomy discoveries for the torus structures of the Solar System.
The standard atomic model, could not be reconciled with the heliocentric Solar System model with the orbiting planets. This is by far, despite misplaced, is the only correct stuff you had said here in the contemporary paradigm of the endorsed modern science.
But, if the scientific models could not explain the reality, it was not reality was incorrect.
Just a gentle reminder again on this is a new theory section.
-
You are evaluating the UVS comparative analysis in the paradigm of the standard model.
No.
I'm saying that the empirical, experimentally verified facts do not agree with your model, and it is not reality which has made a mistake.
Electrons still don't orbit.
The solar system isn't the same shape as an atom.
The solar system is not toroidal.
Kelvin's vortex theory of the atom purported that an atom was a vortex in the aether
And that "theory" obviously died when we proved there was no ether.Georges-Louis Le Sage (1748),
Lord Kelvin (1872), and
Hendrik Lorentz (1900).
Alfred Lauck Parson in 1915,
Science has moved on.
Why are you citing ancient history?
This is akin to a hardcore proponent of the geocentrism with its belief and all its preconceived ideas, is evaluating the Copernicus heliocentrism.
You seem obsessed with heliocentrism, which never had any relevance here.
However it's you who is insisting on a hardcore preconceived belief- that electrons in the atom are like the solar system.
They were not when I posted in the very first reply in this thread.
They still aren't.
-
No.I'm saying that the empirical, experimentally verified facts do not agree with your model, and it is not reality which has made a mistake.
Sounded exactly like those proponents of geocentrism when they dismissed heliocentrism.
Electrons still don't orbit.
The solar system isn't the same shape as an atom.
The solar system is not toroidal.
This was merely the dint of your motherhood statement touted for your red herring to mislead.
Science has moved on.
Why are you citing ancient history?
Why?
The contemporary scientific method (https://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#validity) is intrinsically flawed.
This is despite it has true value for its pragmatic theory of true, but nothing, absolutely nothing it was established with, is at all accurate or proven with the fallacies of its circular definitions and self-referencing.
Nothing purported with it was really proven at all.
And this was very much demonstrated by you in this thread, which took them as absolutely factual.
Yes, it's time to move on from the science delusions that were established with the intrinsically flawed scientific method.
It's not like the theories established with the contemporary scientific method were just a bit off, they were as entirely fallacious as the concept of geocentrism.
Oh man! This is just a very straight forward comparative analysis of another worldview, why are you so upset as were expressed with your irrelevant tautology of a different worldview?
-
Sounded exactly like those proponents of geocentrism when they dismissed heliocentrism.
It may sound that way to you, but, in reality, the evidence shows that atoms are spherical and the solar system is more or less disc shaped.
This was merely the dint of your motherhood statement touted for your red herring to mislead.
Word salad.
Yes, it's time to move on from the science delusions that were established with the intrinsically flawed scientific method.
Then it's time for you to move to a different forumThe contemporary scientific method is intrinsically flawed.
We seem to have found the root of your problems.
-
Sounded exactly like those proponents of geocentrism when they dismissed heliocentrism.
It may sound that way to you, but, in reality, the evidence shows that atoms are spherical and the solar system is more or less disc shaped.
Gibberish.
What you are describing, are the myths of your belief.
This was merely the dint of your motherhood statement touted for your red herring to mislead.
Word salad.
Sounded exactly like the proponent of geocentrism dismissing Copernicus' description for the apparent retrograde motion of the orbiting planets.
Of course people from the delusional cohort would called the knowledge they could not accept as word salad; what could you expect from such delusional people who could not understand they are actually practicing cargo cult science?
Yes, it's time to move on from the science delusions that were established with the intrinsically flawed scientific method.
Then it's time for you to move to a different forum
No. It's time for you to move out of this New Theories thread.
The contemporary scientific method is intrinsically flawed.
We seem to have found the root of your problems.
Firstly, you are not qualified to use the word "We".
As pointed out by two members in this thread, all scientists knew that scientific models are not absolutely factual, but you are oblivious to this understanding.
Secondly, you got it misplaced.
It should be the root of your problems seem to have been found.
-
What you are describing, are the myths of your belief.
What I describe is what happens in the real world.
Atoms are spherical.
The solar system consists of a the sun + planets etc and it's almost all confined to a roughly disk shaped volume of space.
Your continued denial of this- in the face of common sense just makes you look silly.
Firstly, you are not qualified to use the word "We".
You and I together have found out the problem.
It's perfectly acceptable English to say "we" instead of "you and I" in this context.
No. It's time for you to move out of this New Theories thread.
At best, it's time for you to read up on what the word means.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
As pointed out by two members in this thread, all scientists knew that scientific models are not absolutely factual, but you are oblivious to this understanding.
That isn't a flaw. It is the massive advantage that science has over such things as religion and orthodoxy.
Of course people from the delusional cohort would called the knowledge they could not accept as word salad; what could you expect from such delusional people who could not understand they are actually practicing cargo cult science?
If you really thought that your word salad meant anything, you should have explained it, rather than trying to attack me.
Copernicus had evidence.
You don't.
" to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right"
And it seems the same is true of Copernicus.
-
What you are describing, are the myths of your belief.
What I describe is what happens in the real world.
Atoms are spherical.
The solar system consists of a the sun + planets etc and it's almost all confined to a roughly disk shaped volume of space.
Your continued denial of this- in the face of common sense just makes you look silly.
Negative.
What you had described is what happens in the subject reality of your science delusion.
You are bluffing.
Only the simple atom such as hydrogen is spherical, which is also a torus structure. The heavier atoms are not spherical, and could be perceived to be formed in all sorts of spindle torus structures.
The roughly disk shaped volume of space consisting the the Sun + planets etc, which were formed in the circumstellar disc, is in fact a nested ring torus structure.
It was actually your continued denial of this- in the face of common sense just makes you look silly.
Firstly, you are not qualified to use the word "We".
You and I together have found out the problem.
It's perfectly acceptable English to say "we" instead of "you and I" in this context.
Gibberish.
How so was it perfectly acceptable English to say "we" when you disagreed with me the problem of cult science was found out at your side you deemed as perfectly well sorted out?
No. It's time for you to move out of this New Theories thread.
At best, it's time for you to read up on what the word means.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
This is merely your motherhood statement dressing up the cargo cult science.
[As pointed out by two members in this thread, all scientists knew that scientific models are not absolutely factual, but you are oblivious to this understanding.
That isn't a flaw. It is the massive advantage that science has over such things as religion and orthodoxy.
Go tell Galileo he was against the massive advantage of the cargo cult science of his time.
Of course people from the delusional cohort would called the knowledge they could not accept as word salad; what could you expect from such delusional people who could not understand they are actually practicing cargo cult science?
If you really thought that your word salad meant anything, you should have explained it, rather than trying to attack me.
Copernicus had evidence.
You don't.
" to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right"
And it seems the same is true of Copernicus.
Of course people from the delusional cohort would called the knowledge they could not accept as word salad; what could you expect from such delusional people who could not understand they are actually practicing cargo cult science?
Not actually attacking you. Just merely point out the fact that you are actually practicing cargo cult science.
-
The "torus orbitals of an atom" you speak of simply do not exist.
That Max Planck quote emphasized on "only by virtue of a force".
It emphasises "a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together."
And no such force can exist because nothing holds "this most minute solar system of the atom together"Because that solar system does not exist because electrons don't orbit .
The "torus orbitals of an atom" simply do not exist in the subjective reality of your cargo cult science.
Your idea of "no such force can exist" is merely a perception of your science delusion.
As a matter of fact, Newton later corrected his pulled-in gravity concept with his Newton's aether model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories), which reverted back to Lord Kelvin's mechanical explanations of gravitation.
It was merely dismissed by those Newtonians who were practicing cargo cult science on the classical Newton physics for their pragmatic theory of truth.
Electrons with torus orbitals indeed don't orbit in the classical orbiting manner of planets, so are the torus orbitals of planets that are modulating their planetary orbits.
Such repulsive torus force field can exist to manifest the effect of gravity as the push-in force field for matter.
Max Planck was dead right.
-
Only the simple atom such as hydrogen is spherical, which is also a torus structure. The heavier atoms are not spherical,
Just plain wrong
-
Only the simple atom such as hydrogen is spherical, which is also a torus structure. The heavier atoms are not spherical,
Just plain wrong
It isn't always a sphere. The shape of an atomic orbital is determined by quantum physics and changes depending upon its energy level. The s orbitals are spherical, but p orbitals, d orbitals, f orbitals and so on are more complex than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital
Go tell this member he was just plain wrong.
-
Only the simple atom such as hydrogen is spherical, which is also a torus structure. The heavier atoms are not spherical,
Just plain wrong
It isn't always a sphere. The shape of an atomic orbital is determined by quantum physics and changes depending upon its energy level. The s orbitals are spherical, but p orbitals, d orbitals, f orbitals and so on are more complex than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital
Go tell this member he was just plain wrong.
No
I will tell you, once again, that you are just plain wrong.
I imagine Kryptid knows that the overall shape of an atom is spherical and that the orbitals , while not spherical themselves, add up to a distribution that is spherical.
Why are you st steadfast in your refusal to actually study?
-
Only the simple atom such as hydrogen is spherical, which is also a torus structure. The heavier atoms are not spherical,
Just plain wrong
It isn't always a sphere. The shape of an atomic orbital is determined by quantum physics and changes depending upon its energy level. The s orbitals are spherical, but p orbitals, d orbitals, f orbitals and so on are more complex than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital
Go tell this member he was just plain wrong.
No
I will tell you, once again, that you are just plain wrong.
I imagine Kryptid knows that the overall shape of an atom is spherical and that the orbitals , while not spherical themselves, add up to a distribution that is spherical.
Why are you st steadfast in your refusal to actually study?
I will also tell you, once again, that you are just plain wrong.
You have mixed up the force fields of orthogonal spinning objects as objects.
Any object, such as a cube, when subjected to precession effect with its two-axis spin, would definitely form a spherical force field. But, you must not say the physical structure of a cube with its spin, is a sphere.
Its only in you imagination that Kryptid thought that the spherical force field, is the structure of all types of atom. Kryptid knows only the s-orbitals are spherical, and the other atomic orbitals are not.
Your goof is once again proven.
-
You have mixed up the force fields of orthogonal spinning objects as objects.
That doesn't mean anything. It is word salad.
Kryptid knows only the s-orbitals are spherical, and the other atomic orbitals are not.
All the grown-ups here know that.
But that's not the same as saying the atoms are spherical, is it?
-
You have mixed up the force fields of orthogonal spinning objects as objects.
That doesn't mean anything. It is word salad.
It's plain English; what so word salad about it?
"Orthogonal" simply means the two axes of a spinning object, is perpendicular to each other.
The effect of its two-axis spin, would apparently cause physical object of any shape to appear as a sphere. So this apparent appearance of the object, might not be the actual shape of the physical object.
Kryptid knows only the s-orbitals are spherical, and the other atomic orbitals are not.
All the grown-ups here know that.
But that's not the same as saying the atoms are spherical, is it?
Don't ask me, go tell Kryptid atoms are spherical.
-
It's plain English; what so word salad about it?
Did you mean something like "You have mixed up the force fields of orthogonal spinning objects as with objects."?
Because, if you did, it still makes no sense.
Objects don't generally have fields to speak of.
There's no good reason for an object to spin about any axis- most don't.
Do you mean orthogonal objects or orthogonal fields?
If so, why didn't you say anything about fields being orthogonal.
And so on.
As written, it is word salad.
Don't ask me, go tell Kryptid atoms are spherical.
He knows that.
I know it.
You are the only one pretending otherwise.
Do you understand that the Northern hemisphere of the Earth is not a sphere?
And do you agree that the Southern hemisphere is also not a sphere?
But together they make the whole Earth which is pretty nearly a sphere?
In the same way, none of the orbitals (other than s orbitals) of an atom is a sphere.
But if you add the orbitals together you get a spherical electron distribution.
So, stop pretending that Kryptid agrees with you.
He doesn't.
It's just that, as usual, you don't know what you are talking about.
-
It's plain English; what so word salad about it?
Did you mean something like "You have mixed up the force fields of orthogonal spinning objects as with objects."?
Because, if you did, it still makes no sense.
Objects don't generally have fields to speak of.
There's no good reason for an object to spin about any axis- most don't.
Do you mean orthogonal objects or orthogonal fields?
If so, why didn't you say anything about fields being orthogonal.
And so on.
As written, it is word salad.
As usual, you were always confused with all those stuff you pretend to know.
Don't ask me, go tell Kryptid atoms are spherical.
He knows that.
I know it.
You are the only one pretending otherwise.
Do you understand that the Northern hemisphere of the Earth is not a sphere?
And do you agree that the Southern hemisphere is also not a sphere?
But together they make the whole Earth which is pretty nearly a sphere?
This is like a moron asking "Do you know your mother is a female?" to irrelevantly assert his fallacious argument.
In the same way, none of the orbitals (other than s orbitals) of an atom is a sphere.
But if you add the orbitals together you get a spherical electron distribution.
So, stop pretending that Kryptid agrees with you.
He doesn't.
It's just that, as usual, you don't know what you are talking about.
Don't dare go ask Kryptid to clarify your goof?
Kryptid agrees with fact, you don't.
It was actually you who as usual, don't know what you are talking about.
-
As usual, you were always confused with all those stuff you pretend to know.
Do you mean usual or always?
Part of the problem here is your steadfast refusal to be clear.
Even if you were right and I was mistaken about what you are saying, that's still your fault for not making it clear.
This is like a moron asking "Do you know your mother is a female?" to irrelevantly assert his fallacious argument.
No
It's asking you if you understand that orbitals that are not speerical can add together to make atoms that are spherical in the same way that the two halves of an orange which are not spherical can add together to make an orange that is spherical.
So, this time, try answering the questions.
Do you understand that the Northern hemisphere of the Earth is not a sphere?
And do you agree that the Southern hemisphere is also not a sphere?
But together they make the whole Earth which is pretty nearly a sphere?
Don't dare go ask Kryptid to clarify your goof?
I see you have not got him to explain that he and I are the ones who have facts and you are the goof.
Have you asked him?
Are you scared that he will point out that you are wrong?
Atoms remain spherical anyway.
-
As usual, you were always confused with all those stuff you pretend to know.
Do you mean usual or always?
Part of the problem here is your steadfast refusal to be clear.
Even if you were right and I was mistaken about what you are saying, that's still your fault for not making it clear.
I meant you were never not confused with those stuff you pretend to know.
Corpernicus was clear when he presented his work on the observed retrograde motion of a planet, was as a result of its relative motion illusion when perceived from a revolving Earth.
The geocentrists who were so muddle minded in the stuff they pretended to know, of course blamed him for not making it clear enough for it to make sense to them.
The problem were actually with these people were so drunk in their science delusions, they therefore could never be clear on anything at all.
Your delusions in the cargo cult science you so believed, is the real problem of your non clarity.
This is like a moron asking "Do you know your mother is a female?" to irrelevantly assert his fallacious argument.
No
It's asking you if you understand that orbitals that are not speerical can add together to make atoms that are spherical in the same way that the two halves of an orange which are not spherical can add together to make an orange that is spherical.
So, this time, try answering the questions.
That's a goof question not even worth to read.
Do you understand that the Northern hemisphere of the Earth is not a sphere?
And do you agree that the Southern hemisphere is also not a sphere?
But together they make the whole Earth which is pretty nearly a sphere?
That's just so silly for trying to illustrate the superpositioning of atomic orbitals.
Don't dare go ask Kryptid to clarify your goof?
I see you have not got him to explain that he and I are the ones who have facts and you are the goof.
Have you asked him?
Are you scared that he will point out that you are wrong?
Atoms remain spherical anyway.
Kryptid had explicitly stated heavier atoms are not spherical in that thread.
It was merely in your imagination he agrees with you.
It isn't always a sphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital
Go click on his quote of that post, and then tell Kryptid there all atoms are spherical to find out.
-
It is a pity that you don't understand that "atomic orbital" is not the same as "atom".
(spoiler alert- they have different shapes).
That's a goof question not even worth to read.
Come back when you are willing to learn.
-
On a more relevant note, did you see him say this?
It is also important to note that atoms are not to be mistaken for "miniature Solar Systems"
-
It is a pity that you don't understand that "atomic orbital" is not the same as "atom".
(spoiler alert- they have different shapes).
That's a goof question not even worth to read.
Come back when you are willing to learn.
As pointed out by Kryptid, you are plainly wrong.
Come back only after you had realized your mistake. Else, don't bother to come back.
-
On a more relevant note, did you see him say this?
It is also important to note that atoms are not to be mistaken for "miniature Solar Systems"
On the "miniature Solar Systems" issue, Kryptid had been silence after he visited this thread umteen times. I understand a lot of rethinking is necessary, and he was being responsible for his words.
Most likely, he is now considering the proposition on atoms could indeed be "miniature Solar Systems" as stated by Max Planck, and thus had held back on that comment he made last year in that thread.
That was unlike you who with your cargo cult science, had made such a dint on atoms are not comparable to the Solar System with all your goofs.
I don't expect anything accurate from you; do all of us a favor by not saying anything here.
-
It is a pity that you don't understand that "atomic orbital" is not the same as "atom".
(spoiler alert- they have different shapes).
That's a goof question not even worth to read.
Come back when you are willing to learn.
As pointed out by Kryptid, you are plainly wrong.
Come back only after you had realized your mistake. Else, don't bother to come back.
It is a pity that you still don't understand that atomic orbitals are not the same as atoms. (And, by the way, Kryptid made no comment on that issue).
Why can't you understand this simple fact?
Kryptid had been silence after he visited this thread umteen times. I understand a lot of rethinking is necessary
Yes.
And I suspect that he is waiting for you do do that rethinking.
In particular, you need to realise that atomic orbitals may not be spherical, but atoms are.
Let us know when you can clearly explain the difference between orbitals and atoms.
-
That was unlike you who with your cargo cult science, had made such a dint on atoms are not comparable to the Solar System with all your goofs.
That makes no sense, grammatically or semantically, probably by dint of your lack of linguistic prowess.
-
It is a pity that you still don't understand that atomic orbitals are not the same as atoms. (And, by the way, Kryptid made no comment on that issue).Why can't you understand this simple fact?
Not all atoms are spherical is a simple fact, and Kryptid explicitly commented on this.
Whereas you merely were spouting gibberish in your delusion.
-
Kryptid explicitly commented on this.
He did not.
He said that atomic orbitals may not be spherical.
However, it's beside the point.
Kryptid is not God.
Even if he had said it, that would not mean that it was true.
All atoms are spherical.
Here is a list of their radii
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius#Empirically_measured_atomic_radius
-
Whereas you merely were spouting gibberish in your delusion.
It's delusional to think that either Kryptid's word alters the universe or that things with well defined measured radii are not spheres.
It's also deluded to imagine that you can ignore the fact that atomic orbitals are not the same as atoms.
-
By the way, when you finally come round to reality, remember that the issue is not that atoms are "not spherical" for you to be right,.
For you to be right they have to be disk shaped like the Solar System.
IIRC Mercury is the only planet outside the ecliptic plane and that's only by 7 degrees or so.
The radius of the orbit is 70 million Km do the maximum distance from the plane is 70,000,000 times the sine of 7 deg.
About 9 million Km each side of the plane- call it 20 million Km thick. Very little of the Solar system is further from the plane than that.
And if we choose (somewhat arbitrarily) the orbit of Pluto as the edge of the disk then it's about 5 billion Km in radius or 10 billion Km in diameter.
So the solar system is essentially a disk less than 20 Mm thick, but more than 10,000 Mm in diameter.
Proportionately, that's about as thin as a piece of A4 paper.
And so you need to show that not only are atoms not spheres, they are disks 500 times wider than their thickness.
Now, what was that you said about delusion?
-
Is this argument still raging on?
Kryptid had explicitly stated heavier atoms are not spherical in that thread.
What I said is that not all atomic orbitals are spherical. All atoms have s orbitals, including the heavier ones, which means all of them have roughly spherical electron distributions and thus a roughly spherical shape.. An exception to this might be an excited hydrogen atom where the electron that would normally be in the 1s orbital is boosted to a 2p orbital or higher, but that's not the norm.
It's funny. It almost seems like you are citing me as some kind of authority on atomic physics when I'm not even a scientist.
Most likely, he is now considering the proposition on atoms could indeed be "miniature Solar Systems" as stated by Max Planck
Nope.
-
It's funny. It almost seems like you are citing me as some kind of authority on atomic physics when I'm not even a scientist.
I take it, then, that you are not too upset about my saying that you are not God.
:-)
Thanks for coming back and clarifying your point of view.
I really can't understand how this discussion is still raging.
It's very clear to anyone that an atom (even if you imagine it isn't quite spherical) is a disk whose diameter is over 500 times the thickness.
We don't seem to have heard from Paradigmer in a few days.
Perhaps he's "considering the proposition on atoms could indeed be miniature Solar Systems" and recognising that I'm not the deluded one
-
An exception to this might be an excited hydrogen atom where the electron that would normally be in the 1s orbital is boosted to a 2p orbital or higher, but that's not the norm.
Just for the record.
The electron would be excited into a superposition of all 3 possible p orbitals, and that superposition is spherical.
It's not obvious from the diagrams but, if you add the three p orbitals together you get a sphere.
-
All atoms are spherical.Here is a list of their radiihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius#Empirically_measured_atomic_radius
This is what the first paragraph says on atomic radius:
"The atomic radius of a chemical element is a measure of the size of its atoms, usually the mean or typical distance from the center of the nucleus to the boundary of the surrounding shells of electrons. Since the boundary is not a well-defined physical entity, there are various non-equivalent definitions of atomic radius. "
You are in fact proving your own goof.
Do you ever really read your stuff?
-
What I said is that not all atomic orbitals are spherical.
You replied to the question in that thread asking "Why is the atomic structure always described as spherical or using a sphere analogy?"
It isn't always a sphere.
Your reply gave the impression you were adhering to the fact on the structures of atoms are not all spherical.
Now it seems you had misinterpreted that question.
-
We don't seem to have heard from Paradigmer in a few days.Perhaps he's "considering the proposition on atoms could indeed be miniature Solar Systems" and recognising that I'm not the deluded one
Nope. I still consider Max Planck was correct on this.
Was merely busy away earning a few dimes, which was much more worthwhile than responding to your goofs.
-
The electron would be excited into a superposition of all 3 possible p orbitals, and that superposition is spherical.It's not obvious from the diagrams but, if you add the three p orbitals together you get a sphere.
Nope. These are your gibberish.
You may only say some atoms with their orbital superpositions, are quite spherical.
And even then, not all atoms have all the said orbitals.
So, are you saying the orbitals of electrons, constitute to the physical shapes of atoms.
This contradicts with what you had earlier said.
-
It's funny. It almost seems like you are citing me as some kind of authority on atomic physics when I'm not even a scientist.
It was BC who claimed you are a scientist with his appeal to authority.
Now we know he was actually bluffing to dumb people down with his goof.
-
By the way, when you finally come round to reality, remember that the issue is not that atoms are "not spherical" for you to be right,.For you to be right they have to be disk shaped like the Solar System.IIRC Mercury is the only planet outside the ecliptic plane and that's only by 7 degrees or so.The radius of the orbit is 70 million Km do the maximum distance from the plane is 70,000,000 times the sine of 7 deg.About 9 million Km each side of the plane- call it 20 million Km thick. Very little of the Solar system is further from the plane than that.And if we choose (somewhat arbitrarily) the orbit of Pluto as the edge of the disk then it's about 5 billion Km in radius or 10 billion Km in diameter.So the solar system is essentially a disk less than 20 Mm thick, but more than 10,000 Mm in diameter.Proportionately, that's about as thin as a piece of A4 paper.And so you need to show that not only are atoms not spheres, they are disks 500 times wider than their thickness.Now, what was that you said about delusion?
Are you saying the comets in the Oorts cloud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud), are not parts of the Solar System?
Would you ever come round to reality at all?
-
Is this argument still raging on?
I was merely presenting a comparative analysis with the hypothesized torus force fields of the Solar System and the atomic structure in this new theories section.
It was unfortunate that this presentation was much side tracked with the raging arguments.
The member argued not with facts, but with all his very silly non sequitur opinions he could made up in his denials.
This presentation was merely for people who could be interested to consider the propositions.
Readers can have their opinions; people can simply state their agreements or disagreements.
But I find the relentless denial and charges to push not absolute stuff down people throat against other's perspective, was uncalled for.
-
I was merely presenting a comparative analysis with the hypothesized torus force fields of the Solar System and the atomic structure in this new theories section.
And I was pointing out that such a comparison is at odds with reality.
The Solar system is the wrong shape, and electrons don't orbit.
Are you saying the comets in the Oorts cloud, are not parts of the Solar System?
No.
I was hoping to spare your embarrassment, and, of course, it's theoretical. Nobody has seen it.
Since you insist on including it, OK, It means that the Solar system has a much bigger radius. It's, 200,000AU instead of "only" about 40.
But the total mass of the cloud is negligible in terms of the whole Solar system, so we are still looking at a disk, but it's now about a million times thinner than its diameter.
There are only about 120 different types of atoms.
It shouldn't take you long to point out which of them is that shape, rather than spherical.
Just go through the periodic table one element at a time until you find it, then come back and tell us which it is. :-)
. Since the boundary is not a well-defined physical entity, there are various non-equivalent definitions of atomic radius.
But they are still spherical- it's just a question of what electron probability density you draw the surface.
So my point is still supported by that page.
The atoms have spherical symmetry.
You are still wrong.
Now it seems you had misinterpreted that question.
It seems that you repeatedly misunderstood his answer (even after I explained it to you), and are now trying to pretend that it's his fault.
Nope. I still consider Max Planck was correct on this.
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
Nope. These are your gibberish.
No
It's not gibberish, it's maths.
You can find the expression for the electron distribution of the 2p orbitals here.
https://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/AOs/2p/equations.html
and if you add together the distributions for all 3 orthogonal orbitals, you get a sphere.
Either accept it, or show me why it's wrong.
It was BC who claimed you are a scientist with his appeal to authority.
OK, the first person in this thread to quote him was you, Paradigmer, in Reply #10 on: 26/05/2019 07:05:03
Then you did it again
Reply #12 on: 26/05/2019 07:48:12
then again
Reply #21 on: 27/05/2019 17:52:45
and so on.
You claimed that "so far no one else participated in this thread had agreed with your beliefs."
And I pointed out that, on the contrary, others had disagreed with you.
I cited Kryptid as having done so.
But that's not an appeal to authority.
It's just pointing out that you lied in saying people all agreed with you.
He repeatedly said you were wrong.
And then, you said "Go tell this member he was just plain wrong."
And that's where the first "appeal to authority" was made in respect of Kryptid.
You made it here
Reply #118 on: 12/07/2019 16:57:58
Go tell this member he was just plain wrong.
and so you are a liar.
Get back to us when you are ready to apologise for your attempted deceit.
-
I was merely presenting a comparative analysis with the hypothesized torus force fields of the Solar System and the atomic structure in this new theories section.
And I was pointing out that such a comparison is at odds with reality.
The Solar system is the wrong shape, and electrons don't orbit.
It was repeatedly explained to you that this was your fallacious comparative analysis.
Why did you keep insisting on your opinions that are non sequitur to the UVS comparative analysis?
Are you saying the comets in the Oorts cloud, are not parts of the Solar System?
No.
I was hoping to spare your embarrassment, and, of course, it's theoretical. Nobody has seen it.
Since you insist on including it, OK, It means that the Solar system has a much bigger radius. It's, 200,000AU instead of "only" about 40.
But the total mass of the cloud is negligible in terms of the whole Solar system, so we are still looking at a disk, but it's now about a million times thinner than its diameter.
No body said the Oort cloud was not hypothesized.
The mentioned long period comets were to point out your goof, which you now altered the size of your Solar System.
And can you not understand most orbits of these comets with their apsidal motions, cut the invariable plane (your "pretty nearly a flat disk") at large inclinations?
There are only about 120 different types of atoms.
It shouldn't take you long to point out which of them is that shape, rather than spherical.
Just go through the periodic table one element at a time until you find it, then come back and tell us which it is. :-)
It remains not all atoms are spherical.
. Since the boundary is not a well-defined physical entity, there are various non-equivalent definitions of atomic radius.
But they are still spherical- it's just a question of what electron probability density you draw the surface.
So my point is still supported by that page.
The atoms have spherical symmetry.
You are still wrong.
No. It was you who are still wrong.
You had misunderstood spherical symmetry as spherical shape.
All atoms have spherical symmetry, but not all atoms are spherical.
This is yet your another goof.
Now it seems you had misinterpreted that question.
It seems that you repeatedly misunderstood his answer (even after I explained it to you), and are now trying to pretend that it's his fault.
No. I did not blame him. Was merely calling a spade a spade.
And I think he was honest on he was referring to atomic orbitals when answering that question on why atoms are considered spherical. This is despite he now has reservation on the structure of atoms.
Nope. I still consider Max Planck was correct on this.
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
You should say this to yourself.
Nope. These are your gibberish.
No
It's not gibberish, it's maths.
You can find the expression for the electron distribution of the 2p orbitals here.
https://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/AOs/2p/equations.html
and if you add together the distributions for all 3 orthogonal orbitals, you get a sphere.
Either accept it, or show me why it's wrong.
Your had incorrectly illustrated spherical symmetry potential as spherical object.
Any of the 3 orthogonal orbitals has spherical symmetry potential.
And it is simply wrong to say "if you add together the distributions for all 3 orthogonal orbitals, you get a sphere."
Conclusively, your this utterance is gibberish.
It was BC who claimed you are a scientist with his appeal to authority.
OK, the first person in this thread to quote him was you, Paradigmer, in Reply #10 on: 26/05/2019 07:05:03
Then you did it again
Reply #12 on: 26/05/2019 07:48:12
then again
Reply #21 on: 27/05/2019 17:52:45
and so on.
You claimed that "so far no one else participated in this thread had agreed with your beliefs."
And I pointed out that, on the contrary, others had disagreed with you.
I cited Kryptid as having done so.
But that's not an appeal to authority.
It's just pointing out that you lied in saying people all agreed with you.
He repeatedly said you were wrong.
And then, you said "Go tell this member he was just plain wrong."
And that's where the first "appeal to authority" was made in respect of Kryptid.
You made it here
Reply #118 on: 12/07/2019 16:57:58
Go tell this member he was just plain wrong.
and so you are a liar.
Get back to us when you are ready to apologise for your attempted deceit.
You are attempting to cover up your committed deceits.
Thus far, 4 people have participated in this thread, you, and three scientists who all agree that you are wrong.
but....
It's funny. It almost seems like you are citing me as some kind of authority on atomic physics when I'm not even a scientist.
And no I did not say people all agreed with me.
What I said was no one in this thread agreed with you on scientific models are absolutely factual.
We know they are not absolutely factual. We've already said that multiple times.
We occasionally invoke simplified models involving weightless string or even non-radiating moving electrons, but all scientists know the difference between a model and reality.
And so, it now clear you are a liar.
Get back to us when you are ready to apologise for your committed deceits.
But I doubt all those who know your deceits, could ever forgive you.
-
You had misunderstood spherical symmetry as spherical shape.
All atoms have spherical symmetry, but not all atoms are spherical.
There is no difference.
Things with the symmetries of a sphere are spherical.
If you think otherwise please give an example.
And can you not understand most orbits of these comets with their apsidal motions, cut the invariable plane (your "pretty nearly a flat disk") at large inclinations?
I understand how little material there is in the proposed cloud. Do you?
Practically none of the mass of the solar system is not in, or very close to, the plane.
Did you not understand the bit you quoted where I said "pretty nearly".
What I said was no one in this thread agreed with you on scientific models are absolutely factual.
Yes, what you said was Get this right: You are the only person here who believes your beliefs are absolutely factual; so far no one else participated in this thread had agreed with your beliefs.
But, as was pointed out by Alan, virtually nobody in science uses absolute beliefs- so you were attacking something that never existed.
The point I made, which remains true, is that nobody here apart from you thinks you are right.
The atom is not like the solar system.
You are attempting to cover up your committed deceits.
You need to accept that you said something that was untrue.
You tried to pretend that I had started the argument from authority.
But it was you who (demonstrably) did that.
and so you are a liar.
Get back to us when you are ready to apologise for your attempted deceit.
-
You had misunderstood spherical symmetry as spherical shape.
All atoms have spherical symmetry, but not all atoms are spherical.
There is no difference.
Things with the symmetries of a sphere are spherical.
If you think otherwise please give an example.
Yes there is a distinct different.
You should know the spherical symmetry of atoms, refers to their potential.
And can you not understand most orbits of these comets with their apsidal motions, cut the invariable plane (your "pretty nearly a flat disk") at large inclinations?
I understand how little material there is in the proposed cloud. Do you?
Practically none of the mass of the solar system is not in, or very close to, the plane.
Did you not understand the bit you quoted where I said "pretty nearly".
You must as well say the Sun has ~99.9% of the Solar System material.
And so in your twists you can also say the Solar System is "pretty nearly" a sphere.
What I said was no one in this thread agreed with you on scientific models are absolutely factual.
Yes, what you said was Get this right: You are the only person here who believes your beliefs are absolutely factual; so far no one else participated in this thread had agreed with your beliefs.
But, as was pointed out by Alan, virtually nobody in science uses absolute beliefs- so you were attacking something that never existed.
The point I made, which remains true, is that nobody here apart from you thinks you are right.
The atom is not like the solar system.
You are attempting to cover up your committed deceits.
You need to accept that you said something that was untrue.
You tried to pretend that I had started the argument from authority.
But it was you who (demonstrably) did that.
You were taking scientific model as absolutely factual, which unequivocally is your belief.
Alan explicitly said "We occasionally invoke simplified models involving weightless string or even non-radiating moving electrons, but all scientists know the difference between a model and reality.".
So it is clear you are putting words into his mouth.
and so you are a liar.
Get back to us when you are ready to apologise for your attempted deceit.
And so, it now clear you are a liar.
Get back to us when you are ready to apologise for your committed deceits.
-
Yes there is a distinct different.
You should know the spherical symmetry of atoms, refers to their potential.
It refers to their shape.
Now, stop being silly and either show something which is spherically symmetric without being spherical, or just admit that you are wrong.
You were taking scientific model as absolutely factual, which unequivocally is your belief.
It's also silly to pretend that you know what I believe better than I do.
You must as well say the Sun has ~99.9% of the Solar System material.
And so in your twists you can also say the Solar System is "pretty nearly" a sphere.
But, as pointed out earlier, it's a lot better to say it's a disk- because it is,
Electrons still don't orbit.
You were still the one who launched an appeal to Kryptid's authority.
You were still the one who tried to pretend it was me.
You are still the one who needs to apologise for that.
-
But, as pointed out earlier, it's a lot better to say it's a disk- because it is,
As pointed out earlier, this is your belief.
Electrons still don't orbit.
Indeed electrons don't orbit, so your argument is non sequitur as repeatedly mentioned.
But, the Solar System is not "pretty nearly a flat disk".
You were still the one who launched an appeal to Kryptid's authority.
You were still the one who tried to pretend it was me.
You are still the one who needs to apologise for that.
No. You actually were the one who launched the appeals to authority.
I was merely pointing out your beliefs of scientific models are factual, and stuff like all atoms are spherical, were not agreed by the "authority" you appealed to; your denial is futile.
You are still the one who needs to apologise for these.
-
No. You actually were the one who launched the appeals to authority.
Where?
Quote it.
-
As pointed out earlier, this is your belief.
Yes, I believe evidence- that goes with the territory of being a scientist.
The evidence shows that electrons don't orbit.
The evidence shows that the solar system is not spherical.
-
No. You actually were the one who launched the appeals to authority.
Where?Quote it.
Thus far, 4 people have participated in this thread, you, and three scientists who all agree that you are wrong.
And now we all know that you had lied.
-
As pointed out earlier, this is your belief.
Yes, I believe evidence- that goes with the territory of being a scientist.
The evidence shows that electrons don't orbit.
The evidence shows that the solar system is not spherical.
Your belief of "the territory of being a scientist" is neither absolute factual nor impeccable.
It makes no sense imposing your spurious beliefs to the comparative analysis of its proposed paradigm shift.
-
So the problem is that you don't understand the difference between an argument from authority and an argument from consensus.
-
So the problem is that you don't understand the difference between an argument from authority and an argument from consensus.
You had took a step in the correct direction admitting to your cognitive bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Cognitive_bias).
But, your argument from consensus, is nonetheless your argument from authority.
"Through an appeal to authority, a group member might present that opinion as a consensus and encourage the other group members to engage in groupthink by not disagreeing with this perceived consensus or authority." - An excerpt from "Cognitive bias".
-
Except that an argument from consensus is not always a fallacy.
If you are seeking to show that a particular view is common (not necessarily correct, but widely held) then an argument from consensus is valid.
Now, the point in contention at the time was "anyone else reading this will be laughing at you.
"
And, for me to show that is true, it is sufficient to show that the scientists here agree with me.
(Laughing at you is, of course a figure of speech, rather than literal).
All the scientist here agree with me and think you are wrong.
So they are (in a manner of speaking) laughing at you.
And so, now we have disposed of that, can we get back to the real appeal to authority?
The one you kicked off by claiming (wrongly) that Kryptid (who isn't really an authority) agreed with you (though he didn't) and that somehow meant you were right- (which it doesn't).
That's still the first argument from authority in this thread, and it's still down to you.
OK, the first person in this thread to quote him was you, Paradigmer, in Reply #10 on: 26/05/2019 07:05:03
Then we can move on to these.
The solar system is still not much like an atom.
Electrons still don't orbit.
Atoms are still spheres.
Things with spherical symmetry are still spherical.
The sum of the three orthogonal p orbitals is spherical.
You still say a lot of stuff that's just not true.
-
Except that an argument from consensus is not always a fallacy.
If you are seeking to show that a particular view is common (not necessarily correct, but widely held) then an argument from consensus is valid.
Your moot reasoning would not change the fact it is indeed a fallacy.
Now, the point in contention at the time was "anyone else reading this will be laughing at you.
"
And, for me to show that is true, it is sufficient to show that the scientists here agree with me.
(Laughing at you is, of course a figure of speech, rather than literal).
All the scientist here agree with me and think you are wrong.
So they are (in a manner of speaking) laughing at you.
And so, now we have disposed of that, can we get back to the real appeal to authority?
The one you kicked off by claiming (wrongly) that Kryptid (who isn't really an authority) agreed with you (though he didn't) and that somehow meant you were right- (which it doesn't).
That's still the first argument from authority in this thread, and it's still down to you.
OK, the first person in this thread to quote him was you, Paradigmer, in Reply #10 on: 26/05/2019 07:05:03
No.
I merely stated the fact they did not agree with scientific models are absolutely factual as so believed by you.
And it is already proven that the first argument from authority in this thread was started by you.
And people reading this thread and understood your goofs and attempted deceits, would be laughing at you.
Then we can move on to these.
The solar system is still not much like an atom.
Electrons still don't orbit.
Atoms are still spheres.
Things with spherical symmetry are still spherical.
The sum of the three orthogonal p orbitals is spherical.
You still say a lot of stuff that's just not true.
Most of the stuff you mentioned above are not true or misleading.
Your goofs were already unequivocally proven, and so there is no point talking about these science delusions of your belief.
-
Your moot reasoning would not change the fact it is indeed a fallacy.
No.
Saying "everybody says so and thus it must be true" is a fallacy.
Saying "everybody says so and thus it must be widely believed " is not a fallacy.
Do you understand the difference?
I merely stated the fact they did not agree with scientific models are absolutely factual as so believed by you.
Stop pretending that you know what I believe.
Most of the stuff you mentioned above are not true or misleading.
Prove it.
-
And it is already proven that the first argument from authority in this thread was started by you.
If that was true, you would be able to quote it.
Please do so.
(try to remember that what I said about the others laughing at you isn't an appeal to authority, nor is it a fallacy).
-
Your moot reasoning would not change the fact it is indeed a fallacy.
No.Saying "everybody says so and thus it must be true" is a fallacy.
Saying "everybody says so and thus it must be widely believed " is not a fallacy.
Do you understand the difference?
This is still moot reasoning with your twist of words.
Your were asserting your argument as absolutely factual with the belief you applied.
So it still does not change the fact that you had started the appeal to authority in this thread.
-
Most of the stuff you mentioned above are not true or misleading.
Prove it.
Much of your goofs were already addressed in this thread and unequivocally proven.
And in fact, most were not even at all correct, or were meaningless .
Stop pretending all your stuff are absolutely factual; nobody in this thread except yourself believe in your delusions.
-
nobody in this thread except yourself believe in your delusions.
It only takes one counter-example to prove this claim to be wrong.
When it comes to a comparison of atoms, orbitals and solar systems, I believe Bored Chemist.
-
Just as a counterpoint; is there anyone who believes Paradigmer is right?
-
The solar system consists of a the sun + planets etc and it's almost all confined to a roughly disk shaped volume of space.
“Saturn has 62 large moons and countless smaller ones – we’re still discovering them.
So it’s like a mini solar system in itself and the moons range in size from planetary-size objects, like Titan, to small irregular lumps of rock." - Brian Cox; Source:How 'startling' Saturn discovery stunned scientists (https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1157299/nasa-news-saturn-ring-discovery-solar-system-space-bbc-planets-brian-cox-spt)
According to your analysis, Saturn and its 62 moons, are not "pretty nearly a flat disk".
Go tell Brian Cox he was plainly wrong with his mini solar system proposition.
-
Just as a counterpoint; is there anyone who believes Bored chemist's beliefs are absolutely factual?
-
Go tell Brian Cox he was plainly wrong with his mini solar system proposition.
Brian Cox was comparing the Solar system (with multiple planets) to Saturn (with its rings and many moons).
It is thought that the Solar system condensed out of a flat plane of gas and dust.
- It is thought that the inner moons of Jupiter & Saturn condensed out of the same flat plane of gas & dust (the outer moons are probably captured asteroids or comets, so are less regular).
- So these similarities are not surprising, and Brian Cox was using a reasonable analogy (analogy≠definition).
- The de Broglie wavelength of Io or Ganymede is incredibly small - much smaller than a proton, so you could say that quantum effects can be ignored in these orbits.
- The de Broglie wavelength of an electron is quite large - in fact as large as an atom, so you can't ignore quantum effects when it comes to the position of electrons in an atom.
- Quantum systems don't obey Kepler's Laws of planetary motion; they do obey Schrodinger's equation.
- So making an analogy between the solar system and an atom is not a reasonable analogy for anyone older than 14 years (analogy≠definition)
It took several centuries of mathematical and scientific advances to get from Kepler to Schrodinger; time to go back to middle school!
- You could start with those colored plastic balls with holes and sticks, and try constructing some molecules...
-
Just as a counterpoint; is there anyone who believes Bored chemist's beliefs are absolutely factual?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm)
All of the content of that Wikipedia page is exactly what you are not about. You can argue your case but it may well be a zero sum game. We inform you, you spout nonsense, we inform you, you spout nonsense. Well one day you may well find something useful to do with your life. Like actually learning about science. It may even alleviate your boredom. Who knows.
-
The solar system consists of a the sun + planets etc and it's almost all confined to a roughly disk shaped volume of space.
“Saturn has 62 large moons and countless smaller ones – we’re still discovering them.
So it’s like a mini solar system in itself and the moons range in size from planetary-size objects, like Titan, to small irregular lumps of rock." - Brian Cox; Source:How 'startling' Saturn discovery stunned scientists (https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1157299/nasa-news-saturn-ring-discovery-solar-system-space-bbc-planets-brian-cox-spt)
According to your analysis, Saturn and its 62 moons, are not "pretty nearly a flat disk".
Go tell Brian Cox he was plainly wrong with his mini solar system proposition.
What point did you think you were trying to make?
Did Brian compare either Saturn or the Solar system (which are aspherical, and have orbiting things) to atoms which are spherical and don't?
Just as a counterpoint; is there anyone who believes Bored chemist's beliefs are absolutely factual?
Possibly, but it's not me.
So, once again, what point did you think you were making?
-
Just as a counterpoint; is there anyone who believes Paradigmer is right?
Just to clarify that
Just as a counterpoint; is there anyone apart from Paradigmer who believes Paradigmer is right?
-
When it comes to a comparison of atoms, orbitals and solar systems, I believe Bored Chemist.
As a man of science, you honestly believed Bored chemist assertion on the geometry of all atoms are spherically symmetrical?
And you could not see the UVS comparison analysis is simply comparing the postulated torus orbitals of the Solar System and the postulated torus orbitals of atom?
-
you honestly believed Bored chemist assertion on the geometry of all atoms are spherically symmetrical?
Go back to the plastic balls.
Try building a Methane, Ammonia and Water molecule.
You may then start to understand the relative positioning of electrons in space.
-
you honestly believed Bored chemist assertion on the geometry of all atoms are spherically symmetrical?
Go back to the plastic balls.
Try building a Methane, Ammonia and Water molecule.
You may then start to understand the relative positioning of electrons in space.
I do understand to a limited degree on some spherically top molecules with spherical rotors, have spherically symmetric potential.
But, please answer this very straightforward question:
As a man of science, you honestly believed Bored chemist assertion on the geometry of all atoms are spherically symmetric?
-
Brian Cox was comparing the Solar system (with multiple planets) to Saturn (with its rings and many moons).
It is thought that the Solar system condensed out of a flat plane of gas and dust.
- It is thought that the inner moons of Jupiter & Saturn condensed out of the same flat plane of gas & dust (the outer moons are probably captured asteroids or comets, so are less regular).
Generally agreed with most of what you mentioned above.
However, you should also be aware that an inner moon of Saturn, Iapetus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iapetus_(moon)), already has a substantial inclination of 15.47° to Saturn's equator.
You at least were implying the nebular hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis), but it still has many unsolved problems.
There were new observations for HL Tauri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HL_Tauri), and a young star HD 142527 (https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/never-before-seen-stage-of-planet-birth-revealed), which evidently are suggesting their circumstellar disks were formed in their encapsulated wombs of gas and dust.
It was mentioned that the circumstellar disk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstellar_disc) is a torus structure.
- So these similarities are not surprising, and Brian Cox was using a reasonable analogy (analogy≠definition). ).
I beg to differ.
Brian Cox was making his universalizing comparative analysis.
It is not like he was making an analogy with a raising pudding to describe cosmic inflation.
“So it’s like a mini solar system in itself and the moons range in size from planetary-size objects, like Titan, to small irregular lumps of rock." - Brian Cox
And his universalizing comparative analysis was not limited only to the inner moons of Saturn.
- The de Broglie wavelength of Io or Ganymede is incredibly small
- much smaller than a proton, so you could say that quantum effects can be ignored in these orbits.
- The de Broglie wavelength of an electron is quite large
- in fact as large as an atom, so you can't ignore quantum effects when it comes to the position of electrons in an atom.
Despite the mentioned parameter of your comparisons differed greatly, you had pointed out one of their similarities with the said de Broglie wavelength.
- Quantum systems don't obey Kepler's Laws of planetary motion; they do obey Schrodinger's equation.
Kepler's Laws of planetary motion indeed don't obey Schrodinger's equation, but you were dragged by Bored chemist to compare planetary orbits with atomic orbitals.
Alfvén Wave Propagation (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GL081472) was found in Io plasma torus (https://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_picture.asp?id=1174), which is known for describing quantum plasmas.
I reiterated the UVS comparative analysis, is on the hypothesized torus structures of the Solar System and the UVS atomic model.
-
All of the content of that Wikipedia page is exactly what you are not about. You can argue your case but it may well be a zero sum game. We inform you, you spout nonsense, we inform you, you spout nonsense. Well one day you may well find something useful to do with your life. Like actually learning about science. It may even alleviate your boredom. Who knows.
I am conceded that much of my stuff as generally expressed, have holes and are incorrect in its evolving stage.
But, it is not as if the contemporary scientific method is not intrinsically flawed.
In the meanwhile of corresponding in this thread, some scientists had privately sent their reviews on UVS to me. Despite they had commented on the strength as well as the weaknesses of the UVS treatise, I can say many had reviewed it seriously. And despite they addressed some shortcomings, they did not considered that I had spouted nonsense. And I am certainly not bored with such reviews coming in. It is unfortunate I have to bear with much boring nonsense in this thread for them to find UVS.
Well one day you may well find the stuff you believed as impeccable sciences, are among those like geocentrism when the paradigm shift materializes.
-
As a man of science, you honestly believed Bored chemist assertion on the geometry of all atoms are spherically symmetrical?
I imagine that it's not that he believes me.
I think he believes the evidence.
That shows that atoms are all spherical.
And you could not see the UVS comparison analysis is simply comparing the postulated torus orbitals of the Solar System and the postulated torus orbitals of atom?
Apart from the rather silly case of calling spherical orbitals toroids, there are no known toroidal orbitals.
And, given that they are all more or less elliptical, there are no known toroidal orbitals in the solar system.
So you are comparing something that doesn't exist with something else that doesn't exist.
Kepler's Laws of planetary motion indeed don't obey Schrodinger's equation, but you were dragged by Bored chemist to compare planetary orbits with atomic orbitals.
Thanks, you just proved my point.
The solar system really does obey Kepler's laws to a high degree of accuracy.
And electrons really do follow Schrodinger's equations (again, to a very high degree of accuracy).
And, as you say
"Kepler's Laws of planetary motion indeed don't obey Schrodinger's equation,".
So you have stated that solar systems do not behave the same way as atoms.
You have finally realised what I told you in May.
Some scientists had privately sent their reviews on UVS to me. Despite they had commented on the strength as well as the weaknesses of the UVS treatise, I can say many had reviewed it seriously. And despite they addressed some shortcomings, they did not considered that I had spouted nonsense. And I am certainly not bored with such reviews coming in. It is unfortunate I have to bear with much boring nonsense in this thread for them to find UVS.
It's good to know that your invisible friends agree with you.
But that's hardly going to convince anyone, is it?
-
These gold atoms look spherical to me: https://images.slideplayer.com/26/8888557/slides/slide_8.jpg
-
These gold atoms look spherical to me: https://images.slideplayer.com/26/8888557/slides/slide_8.jpg
So that's only about 79 stable isotopes that Paradigmer has to go through to see if he can find any which are not spherical.
I wonder why that's taking him so long.