0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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.
In fact heliocentrism and geocentrism are not only analytically correct in their worldviews
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.
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.
Geocentrism is not even remotely correct.
We know they are not absolutely factual. We've already said that multiple times.
Who made that argument?
Its not about geocentrism is correct or not.
This thread is not very long. Go read it up a bit and you should know who.
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.
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.
planetary orbit is an incomplete concept, and it is a physical paradox that does not reflect the orbital it entails.
The electrons in atoms are not moving in orbits.
this most minute solar system of the atom
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.
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.
But you can't get round the fact that Quotethis 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).
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.
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.
LOL! The heliocentric model was presented by BC,
minute solar system
The rest of your comments are digressing further
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."
No.You presented it in the OP.Had you forgotten?
Now, please tell us what this paradox, which you keep going on about, is,
the heliocentric model stubbornly put forth by you in your arguments
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.
I will highlight two relevant cognitive paradoxes of the Solar System