Stationary model of the solar system

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Fermer05, Nov 8, 2023.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,893
    I predict our esteeemed OP Fermer05 will ignore the evidence that refutes his fanciful ideas in favour of posting yet more unsubstantiated ideas.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,601
    Fun challenge for all you science types out there:

    I can find 15 mistakes in the above four sentences. Can anyone find more?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,893
    This is one of those circumstances that drives the case for Pauli's phrase "not even wrong".

    There's just not enough in there to distinguish anything being less wrong than anything else.
     
    Pinball1970 likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,601
    Yes. And you listed several predictions that your hypothesis made. Those predictions have been proven FALSE. Therefore your hypothesis is INVALID.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,245
    Wow, Fermer05.

    It's rare to see so many factual and theoretical errors in a single post.

    Thanks for the summary. It looks like you and your Russian research group (if there is one) need to go back and learn from first-year physics.
    Didn't you read that article, Fermer?

    It corroborates the information you were given previously, that a number of artificial satellites are currently in orbit around Earth's Moon.
    Why hasn't the Sun fallen into the centre of the galaxy, then?
    There is no coriolis force of the sun.
    How can light slow down? What slows it?

    What particles can light break up into? What's causes light to break up?

    Why would particles created by light breaking up collapse into a star?

    Is angular momentum conserved in the process of transforming kinetic energy of light into rotational energy of a star?
    Do you think that distant galaxies orbit our Sun, Fermer?
    It sounds like you do think that. You are wrong.

    Is your group of Russian scientists really just you, or are there a whole bunch of you, being wrong together?
    Why would they approach the Sun?

    What causes this compression you mention?
    Half right. Most of the mass of the solar system is in the Sun. An ecliptic plane has no mass.
    No. The asteroid belt in our solar system is in a stable range of orbits around the Sun. Asteroids do not approach the Sun.
    Why would planets emerge? What would cause that? The imaginary coriolis force, perhaps?
    No. The axial speed of planets is essentially independent of their orbital speed around the Sun.
    Things that come close to the Sun get hot. It doesn't take much thought to deduce that. Theoretically, if some massive interplanetary collision caused a planet to approach the Sun, then eventually it might come within the Roche limit and be pulled apart by tidal forces. But there's no danger of that happening in our solar system, where planetary orbits are reasonably stable.

    There's no reason any planet would ever "approach the Sun".
    Negligibly. Remember, >99% of the solar system's mass is in the Sun. Even if it absorbed all of the other material in the solar system, it wouldn't make much of a difference to the Sun.
     
  9. Fermer05 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    125
    Objects of the Solar System will not be able to endlessly rotate around numerous centers.
    The laws of celestial mechanics are not omnipotent and they are limited to the task of three bodies; The Earth revolves around the Sun, the Moon revolves around the Earth, but nothing revolves around the Moon.
    Not a single natural satellite of the planets has a permanent or temporary satellite, since this would already be the task of four bodies, which contradicts the laws of existence. https://naked-science.ru/qa/518331
    Only the Sun and planets without satellites will be able to revolve around the “center of the Galaxy”.
    Due to inertia, artificial satellites of the Earth will rotate much longer than artificial satellites of the Moon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsatellite
    In nature there is no relationship without symbiosis, and the solar system does not need the center of the galaxy.
    And the most important question is why asteroids have satellites, but planetary satellites do not have satellites, despite the fact that planetary satellites are much more massive than asteroids. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor-planet_moon
    Saturn's two moons, Janus and Epimetheus, move in the same orbit and pass each other every four years.
    If these two satellites orbited the Sun, then Janus would have captured Epimetheus. https://elementy.ru/kartinka_dnya/430/Tanet...usa_i_Epimetey
     
  10. Fermer05 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    125
    On 14 November 2008, the Moon Impact Probe separated from the Chandrayaan orbiter at 14:36 UTC and struck the south pole in a controlled manner. The probe hit near the crater Shackleton at 15:01 UTC.[9][10][11][12] The location of impact was named Jawahar Point.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,893
    The universe is a dynamic place. Everything is influenced by everything else. Even planetary orbits are not stable over long enough time scales.
    This does not help your hypothesis.

    Stating this again doesn't make it any less wrong.

    Again, demononstrably false.

    Again, demononstrably false.

    Stating this again doesn't make it any less wrong.

    Nonsense.


    So you acknowledge satellites of the Moon; directly contradicting your own assertions, above.

    Nonsense.

    Demonstrably false.


    This has become a sermon. You preach, you assert without evidence, but you do not engage.
     
    Pinball1970 likes this.
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,893
    Are you referring to the orbiting satellite that's ... orbiting the Moon?
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,601
    Then a single post later:
    Note the word in bold.

    You have proven your own theory wrong!
     
    Pinball1970 likes this.
  14. Fermer05 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    125
    Without engines, artificial Earth satellites orbit much longer than artificial Moon satellites.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2023
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,601
    Nope! Again, there are stable lunar orbits just like there are stable earth orbits.

    But good for you for backpedaling away from your earlier claims. Another 2-3 backpedals and you'll be back in reality!
     
  16. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,388
    And the reason for the instability of some lower Lunar orbits is the "unevenness" of its gravitational field caused by mascons under the Moon's surface, and has nothing to do with the Moon orbiting the Earth.
     
    Fermer05 and billvon like this.
  17. Fermer05 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    125
    Rotating around the Earth, the Moon approaches and moves away from the Earth, due to which the Moon periodically falls into resonance, and as a result, a supermoon and a micromoon occur.
    The reason for the Moon's resonance is the Earth's elliptical orbit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermoon
    Artificial satellites of the Earth and Moon can also resonate. https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mascon
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,601
    Your claim does not match your link. I fear you have simply copy-and-pasted links you have not read, or do not understand.
     
  19. Fermer05 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    125
    https://www.booksite.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/056/700.htm
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,893
    Ah there we have it. He's flogging his paper/book.

    That's why he isn't interested in defending his ideas here
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,601
    Indeed. His devotion to his erroneous claims seemed odd - until you posted the above, and I realized that he is doing it out of simple greed, to tout his book. A most common reason to push woo, unfortunately.
     
  22. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,434
    Another pot boiler poster for sciforums.
     
  23. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,871
    Seriously, he wrote a book about this rubbish?!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page