this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2025
49 points (98.0% liked)
Asklemmy
50286 readers
294 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The model of the solar system as planets rotating mostly within a flat plane around the sun, will become something more like the sun being akin to a bullet with a ballerina dress (to represent coronal aura and discharge) with the planets spiralling along with it but slower and trailing just a little behind. It will also include more space properties that aren't as well known like massive gas bubbles and a non-static gravitational floor, as well as man-made spacecraft and satellites. I don't know actually know what the current prevailing theory is. there's a lot of assumption here, plus imagination of how I believe things actually are, with no real certainty or any supporting evidence.
This hasn't been the prevailing theory in a while. Actually, that's true for most of the simplified models we learned in elementary school. What you describe is quite a bit closer to the prevailing theory.
Oh, well that's good to know. Thanks! I guess I need to update my own knowledge of what prevailing thought is.
Did you really think that what you were able to infer from basic knowledge about the motion of the planets was not realized by scientists?
I did not think it was a prevailing theory. Now I'm curious about what you wanted to accomplish by asking that question. Why would it matter either way?
As to what I am trying to accomplish: your comments, suggesting you have some theory about how the planets move that somehow scientists have missed, suggests to me some basic misunderstanding about how science or scientific knowledge works, and I'm trying to get at that, to possibly help you see something you are missing.
I don't even know what you are talking about when you say 'theory'. I can't remember ever seeing a model of the planets rotating around the sun presented as a 'theory.' It's just a model to explain what is understood about it, and of course a simplification. Of course scientists understand that the sun is also moving and if you combine that motion with the orbiting of the planets you of course get a spiral.