Stationary model of the solar system

Status
Not open for further replies.
I predict our esteeemed OP Fermer05 will ignore the evidence that refutes his fanciful ideas in favour of posting yet more unsubstantiated ideas.
 
Fermer05 said:
Sunlight approaching the edge of the Solar System, under the influence of the Coriolis force of the Sun, is deflected and begins to move along the perimeter of the Solar System, against the rotation of the Sun. The sunlight then slows down, breaks up into particles and collapses into a star, causing the kinetic energy of the light to be transformed into the rotational energy of the star. At the edge of the Solar System, the force of gravity, the speed of light, as well as the axial and orbital speed of stars, globular clusters and galaxies are close to zero. The farther a star is from the Sun, the lower the orbital speed of the stars.
Click to expand...

Fun challenge for all you science types out there:

I can find 15 mistakes in the above four sentences. Can anyone find more?
 
billvon said:
Fun challenge for all you science types out there:

I can find 15 mistakes in the above four sentences. Can anyone find more?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Fermer05 said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsatellite
Click to expand...
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.
Fermer05 said:
1. The solar system is an autonomous object of the Universe and is in a stationary state in space and does not rotate around the center of the galaxy.
Click to expand...
Why hasn't the Sun fallen into the centre of the galaxy, then?
2. Sunlight approaching the edge of the Solar System, under the influence of the Coriolis force of the Sun, is deflected and begins to move along the perimeter of the Solar System, against the rotation of the Sun.
Click to expand...
There is no coriolis force of the sun.
3. The sunlight then slows down, breaks up into particles and collapses into a star, causing the kinetic energy of the light to be transformed into the rotational energy of the star.
Click to expand...
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?
4. At the edge of the Solar System, the force of gravity, the speed of light, as well as the axial and orbital speed of stars, globular clusters and galaxies are close to zero.
Click to expand...
Do you think that distant galaxies orbit our Sun, Fermer?
The farther a star is from the Sun, the lower the orbital speed of the stars.
Click to expand...
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?
6. Approaching the Sun, the stars compress and become denser...
Click to expand...
Why would they approach the Sun?

What causes this compression you mention?
Most of the mass of the Solar System comes from the Sun and the ecliptic plane...
Click to expand...
Half right. Most of the mass of the solar system is in the Sun. An ecliptic plane has no mass.
..., due to which asteroids orbiting the Sun slowly approach both the Sun and the ecliptic plane, resulting in the formation of the Kuiper Belt.
Click to expand...
No. The asteroid belt in our solar system is in a stable range of orbits around the Sun. Asteroids do not approach the Sun.
Then planets emerge from the Kuiper belt, surrounded by a system of rings from which satellites are formed.
Click to expand...
Why would planets emerge? What would cause that? The imaginary coriolis force, perhaps?
As they approach the Sun, the orbital speed of the planets increases, as a result of the transformation of the axial speed of the planets into orbital speed.
Click to expand...
No. The axial speed of planets is essentially independent of their orbital speed around the Sun.
When the planet comes close to the Sun, the geological activity of the planets increases, resulting in an explosion of the combustible mixture in the fractures of the planets, and as a result the planet is destroyed into fragments, similar to Comet Shoemaker - Levy 9.
Click to expand...
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".
Then fragments of the planets, rotating around the Sun at a speed of tens of km/sec, crash into the surface of the Sun, due to which the axial speed of the Sun increases.
Click to expand...
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.
 
billvon said:
Satellites currently active and in orbit around the Moon:

Artemis P1
Artemis P2
Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter (LRO)
Chandrayaan-2
Capstone
Korea Pathfinder Lunar Orbiter (KPLO)

Dead satellites that are no longer active but are still orbiting:

Ouna
Chandrayaan-1
Luna 10
Ye-6LF
Ye-6LS
Ye-6S
Ye-8LS

Some have been there for more than 50 years.

I don't think you understand how science works. You propose a theory - like your claim that nothing can orbit the moon because that is "the task of four bodies, which contradicts the laws of existence." Then you do experiments to see if that's true. You could launch a mission to try to place a satellite in orbit around the Moon. Or - easier - just observe someone else who has tried to do it. If you had done that you would have realized that there have been more than a dozen satellites of the Moon, some of which have been there for more than 50 years. Thus your theory fails.
Click to expand...
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
 
Fermer05 said:
Objects of the Solar System will not be able to endlessly rotate around numerous centers.
Click to expand...
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.

Fermer05 said:
The laws of celestial mechanics are not omnipotent and they are limited to the task of three bodies;
Click to expand...
Stating this again doesn't make it any less wrong.

Fermer05 said:
... nothing revolves around the Moon.
Click to expand...
Again, demononstrably false.

Fermer05 said:
Not a single natural satellite of the planets has a permanent or temporary satellite,
Click to expand...
Again, demononstrably false.

Fermer05 said:
since this would already be the task of four bodies, which contradicts the laws of existence.
Click to expand...
Stating this again doesn't make it any less wrong.

Fermer05 said:
Only the Sun and planets without satellites will be able to revolve around the “center of the Galaxy”.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.

Fermer05 said:
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
Click to expand...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsatellite
So you acknowledge satellites of the Moon; directly contradicting your own assertions, above.

Fermer05 said:
In nature there is no relationship without symbiosis, and the solar system does not need the center of the galaxy.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.

Fermer05 said:
And the most important question is why asteroids have satellites, but planetary satellites do not have satellites,
Click to expand...
Demonstrably false.


This has become a sermon. You preach, you assert without evidence, but you do not engage.
 
Fermer05 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Then a single post later:
Fermer05 said:
On 14 November 2008, the Moon Impact Probe separated from the Chandrayaan orbiter
Click to expand...
Note the word in bold.

You have proven your own theory wrong!
 
Fermer05 said:
Solar systems will be able to revolve around the “center of the Galaxy”, without satellites.
The laws of celestial mechanics are not omnipotent and 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 be the task of four bodies, which contradicts the laws of existence.
Objects in the Solar System are not designed to revolve around multiple centers.
https://naked-science.ru/qa/518331
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
Due to inertia, the artificial satellites of the Earth rotate much longer than the artificial satellites of the Moon. дБ 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.
Click to expand...
Without engines, artificial Earth satellites orbit much longer than artificial Moon satellites.
 
Last edited:
Fermer05 said:
Without engines, artificial Earth satellites orbit much longer than artificial Moon satellites.
Click to expand...
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!
 
billvon said:
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!
Click to expand...
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 said:
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 resonance of the Moon's orbit is the uneven orbital speed of the Moon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermoon
Artificial satellites of the Earth and Moon can also resonate. https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mascon
Click to expand...
https://www.booksite.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/056/700.htm
 
Ah there we have it. He's flogging his paper/book.

That's why he isn't interested in defending his ideas here
 
DaveC426913 said:
Ah there we have it. He's flogging his paper/book.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top