[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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).

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

[evan_au]

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.

[Bored chemist]

Just as a counterpoint; is there anyone who believes Paradigmer is right?

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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

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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

Just as a counterpoint; is there anyone who believes Bored chemist's beliefs are absolutely factual?

[evan_au]

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...

[jeffreyH]

Just as a counterpoint; is there anyone who believes Bored chemist's beliefs are absolutely factual?

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.

[Bored chemist]

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

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?

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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?

[evan_au]

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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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?

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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, already has a substantial inclination of 15.47° to Saturn's equator.

You at least were implying the nebular hypothesis, but it still has many unsolved problems.
There were new observations for HL Tauri, and a young star HD 142527, which evidently are suggesting their circumstellar disks were formed in their encapsulated wombs of gas and dust.
It was mentioned that the circumstellar disk 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 was found in Io plasma torus, 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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Kryptid]

These gold atoms look spherical to me: https://images.slideplayer.com/26/8888557/slides/slide_8.jpg