Quote:
Originally Posted by Unplugem
How many bodies are there in your make-believe solar system? More than three? If so, it would be unpredictable and "gravity" would make the "orbits" sporadic and unpredictable; it would look something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gxDKd...?feature=share
This is not what we see in our night sky. The paths of stars are the same year after year and the paths of "planets," which are actually wandering stars, are able to be forecasted.
If the "universe" was a thing, that started from "the big bang," which is utter nonsense and complete chaos, then by organizing into the fake Kabbalah "Tree of Life" "solar system," which is orderly, it would be breaking the law of entropy, as things only become more chaotic over time, not more orderly.
The fake "solar system" that you seem to believe in would need to have a creator, in order for it to be as orderly as it is said to be. It simply cannot have been created by something as chaotic as the "big bang theory." Arguing otherwise, you would be denying the law of entropy. |
How can a simulation as seen in those YouTube videos even exist if there were no way to predict the paths of 3 bodies in space? There's simply 2 possibilities. One is that the videos you shared were made up by an artist and do not actually represent a simulation, in which case your argument is based on fake evidence. The other possibility is that the simulation is accurate and thus the motions of multiple bodies are indeed predictable. The motion may appear to be chaotic at first glance but if a person were to understand the underlying physics and mathematics, then the motion makes perfect sense to that person. I believe the latter is true but I am curious as to what side of the paradox you fall on?
Simply put, it is logically impossible to make an argument against the solar system existing based on visual simulations of the three body problem unless you also acknowledge the simulations to be accurate representations of what would happen.
If you acknowledge the simulations as accurate, now we can discuss why those simulations turn out the way they do and why they are different than a solar system.
Let's say we ran those simulations with trillions of tiny items and added in this thing called physical interference, where if two objects collided they would stick together. Call the start of this simulation "birth of the system". Then we run the simulation for billions of years. At first it appears to be utter chaos. Little rocks flying every which way. As time goes on, some of those rocks hit each other and combine into bigger rocks. Those bigger rocks would pick up more and more mass. Generally the biggest mass would be towards the center because that's where most of the collisions occur as there are more rocks flying through the center at any one time than the edges, increasing chances of a collision.
Very quickly in the simulation, we would see the majority of the rocks/mass gather at the center. Since there is so much mass here anything that doesn't have enough tangential speed to overcome the inward force generated by a such large mass would just fall into the central mass. What is left is millions of smaller rocks in somewhat chaotic orbits of that larger mass. As the simulation progresses these rocks are either sucked up by the central mass of rock, or combine into other large masses in apparently stable orbits. Anything that survives this mid-life stage is extremely lucky. Out of trillions of objects, we might have 8 or so major bodies that have pulled in a lot of mass. Maybe a few million more smaller bits just whizzing about. Everything else got pulled into this giant thing at the center.
After a long time we wind up with a stable system from the chaos. If you don't believe me, build or find an accurate simulation with more objects run over a large period of "time" (obviously sped up because none of us will be here in 6 billion years). In conclusion, with more bodies in the system and more time on the clock the "three body problem" actually supports the solar system model because a simulation on that scale would result in at least a similar, if not identical form.