[Paradigmer (OP)]

This is a presentation of a bite size UVS subtopic on "A comparative analysis of the Solar System with the UVS atomic model".

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, is a vortically formed nested 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, 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", or even the entire UVS treatise.

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.

[Bored chemist]

"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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

"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 is one of the examples.

[Bored chemist]

"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 is one of the examples.

Lots of words.
None of them matters.
Electrons don't orbit.

(BTW, planets do)

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

it is a physical paradox

In what way?

[Paradigmer (OP)]

In what way?

Try visualizing planetary orbital with the apsidal precession effect.

Take a look at the Io plasma torus.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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""

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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 before you make more goof comments.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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?

[Kryptid]

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.