« on: 23/06/2019 16:03:15 »
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Quote from: Paradigmer on 21/06/2019 09:49:21You 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.
Meanwhile, electrons still don't orbit.
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?
Quote from: Paradigmer on Today at 07:13:30You 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).Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/06/2019 20:51:35Do you understand that the limit of a large sphere is a plane?
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?
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.
That animation doesn't say anything about heliocentricity.
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.
Quote from: Paradigmer on Yesterday at 07:06:40Even a three year old knows it is a heliocentric animationHow?
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.Quote from: Paradigmer on 17/06/2019 19:57:25All these are your gibberish.Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/06/2019 19:26:47Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it gibberish.
Do you understand that the limit of a large sphere is a plane?
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?
So, what you are saying is that you managed to be so unclear that all of us thought you were talking about a paradox.
Did you say paradox, but mean something else?
I thought we had checked on that possibility.
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.
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.
They pointed out a number of issues where you were simply wrong.You keep talking about a paradox that doesn't exist.
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..
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 want proof that a torus has a hole?
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?
So, it's the solar system, but not the solar system.Make up 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?
The rest of your post isn't really worth wasting time on.
and I think people will see " solar system of the atom " as saying that he was comparing them.
Planck is dead.
He's not posting here, and he never will.
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 really don't know what a torus is, do you?
You start by quoting something that's wrong.When someone points that out, you accuse them of deception.
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.
QuoteQuote 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.QuoteQuote 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.
No, I did not.
If you think I did, please quote what I said.
You presented it in the OP.
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.
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.
I thought all grown ups knew this.
"The solar system is indeed very flat,"
Strictly it was someone else's- but you cited it.