Stationary model of the solar system

I predict our esteeemed OP Fermer05 will ignore the evidence that refutes his fanciful ideas in favour of posting yet more unsubstantiated ideas.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fun challenge for all you science types out there:

I can find 15 mistakes in the above four sentences. Can anyone find more?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. And you listed several predictions that your hypothesis made. Those predictions have been proven FALSE. Therefore your hypothesis is INVALID.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

Are you referring to the orbiting satellite that's ... orbiting the Moon?

 

Then a single post later:

Note the word in bold.

You have proven your own theory wrong!

 

Without engines, artificial Earth satellites orbit much longer than artificial Moon satellites.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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

 

Your claim does not match your link. I fear you have simply copy-and-pasted links you have not read, or do not understand.

 

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

 

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.

 

Another pot boiler poster for sciforums.

 

Seriously, he wrote a book about this rubbish?!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!