I would assume the downvotes are more for the “religion is a framework to be shitty” part. I’m also going to get downvoted for a similar reason.

Religion is justification for one’s moral compass / desires.

You see people who think it’s morally okay to rape kids or take away women’s rights or the rights of trans people or the rights of gay people etc. These people can’t justify morals (or lack thereof) logically so they use religion to give them a false sense of rationality. Hence you think religion is a framework for being shitty.

However, there are other people who use religion to justify “good” behavior like compassion and acceptance. These people are still reliant on fallacious beliefs, but their actions are not “shitty” so they get offended. Furthermore, others—who know people in this second category—may also think the remark about religion being shitty is not correct and is rude. That’s why it’s getting downvoted.

Fun sidenote, we can actually formally prove that religion or at least absolute morality doesn’t matter, and that people will just do what they want no matter what:

Proof. We seek to prove that people do whatever they want regardless of the existence of a god or absolute morality. We have three natural cases:

Case 1: Assume neither god nor an absolute purpose/morality exists. Then a person will default to their own morals. Hence, if neither exists, people will do whatever they want.

Case 2: Assume a god or purpose/morality exists that does not align with a person’s current morals. (For example a god that required you to strangle six puppies every year or required human sacrifice, or raping kids, or blowing up hospitals, or working in finance, etc.). Then this person will not follow that god/purpose because they are a bad god/purpose. Hence, a person will do whatever they feel is right regardless even with the existence of a true deity/purpose when that god/purpose does not share their morals.

Case 3: Assume a true god or purpose does exist and that it aligns with the morality of a person. Then that person will be living that way anyway, so the existence of the god or purpose has no effect on them doing whatever they want.

In each case a person will do whatever they want regardless of the existence or non existence of a god or a true purpose/morality. Q.E.D.

I should note that while I did come up with this proof myself several years ago, I learned later that Marcus Aurelius and other philosophers beat me to the punch by several centuries. But hey philosophy is the study of understanding existence, if we both exist in the same existence we can and should be able to discover the same facts about reality.

If you assume that a “bullet” is a unit of momentum (the mass and velocity of a bullet) and “square child” is actually just referring to the mass of a child who happens to be square shaped and not the mass of a child squared, then “bullets per square child” is describing valid units for a velocity

“Preposterous twaddlecock Time travel is impossible!”

“But Professor, you time traveled yourself. Remember? When we went back to Roswell?”

“That proves nothing! And furthermore, you’d think I could remember a thing like that! Plus, who are you anyway?”

Don’t forget his birthday and his mother’s maiden name too

“Mr. Doctor man questions his hands…”

See I agree with your last statement. I mean “any” is a stretch but yeah there probably are other systems involving distance based forces that we could draw similarities to chemistry from.

I guess the issue here is that my argument is there are similarities and your argument is that one shouldn’t point out similarities unless there are enough of them…?

Your first paragraph implies you thought I meant just setting these systems statically next to each other would create a stable orbit. You’re right, that would be wrong. But I don’t think I ever mentioned stationary combination. Furthermore, while regular chemistry could work like that, in the real world every atom is moving. The bonds form when atoms get close enough. This is why temperature increases chemical reactions. More motion means more “collisions” that aren’t really collisions but you get the picture.

Objects in space are also constantly in motion. If you want to bring two stellar systems together, you need to give them velocities relative to each other. Or as you put it, momentum. This could be enough to ensure a stable system but it requires that the velocities at least a roughly specific which is what I meant when I said system chemistry would be highly directional in my original comment.

As for magnets. You could say both atoms and magnetic systems run on similar forces. You could make the argument that they, like atoms, have components which are constantly in motion and that if perturbed enough one could overcome those forces and break the system into its individual components.

However the behavior of the system as a whole is not similar to atoms because it cannot form any bonds of any kind with other similar systems.

If you were able to find magnetic monopoles which may or may not exist, you could probably build a system that is much more atom like than a gravitational system. But with magnets that have dipoles, even a ferromagnetic material would be drawn to one pole or the other. I suppose you could get up to two ferromagnetic bodies to orbit a rotating bar magnet if the velocities and distances were right, but you wouldn’t be able to combine them because moving any magnet closer would disrupt the conditions needed for stability.

Magnets are much more sensitive than gravitational systems because the objects have to be large relative to the system and close together whereas gravitational systems can be ginormous like Alpha Centauri.

Anyway it’s fun to think about what exactly I would count as chemical like properties.

I’d say they are mostly just the following:

1. A unit system is made of different components that are held together by some distance based force in a specific state of equilibrium; the unit has a space near the center containing the majority of the mass, and the unit can on some scale be treated as a particle.
2. Both components and units are separated by a functionally empty medium
3. Units can lose/gain/steal components from other units
4. A unit’s components and their amount/locations/motion change the way it interacts with other units
5. Some components can combine into a single component, split into multiple functioning components, or decay
6. Units can decay spontaneously or as a result of physical interaction
7. The removal or addition of a component to a unit can cause the unit to become unstable but does not always do so
8. Units interact with other units via a distance based force and can form stable multi unit equilibrium states, combine into a single unit, or destabilize entirely.
9. The specific equilibrium state (shape/configuration)of a multi unit system affects how it will interact with other units or multi unit systems.
10. Units can be removed from multi unit systems by other multi unit systems or external units with or without destabilizing the rest of the system from which it is removed.
11. Units and systems with similar enough configurations will react in similar ways

I think that covers it. So if you can find a system that fits those then I’d say there are similarities between them and atoms/chemistry. I will honestly be pretty excited if you do because it will be interesting.

Gravitational capture occurs when one object enters a stable orbit around another (typically referring to natural orbits rather than orbit insertion of a spacecraft with an orbital maneuvers).

So saying it “is not possible” is verifiably wrong. The perceived rarity of gravitational capture is most likely just due to how empty space is, not the unlikelihood of stability.

On that note, I think you might want to do some math yourself. You seem to be laboring under the impression that there are limited or maybe only a single exact state of stability for systems like this. “You have to perfectly set the velocities and magnetic moments” I’m not sure about magnets but I am sure about gravitation, and you don’t need to be very precise at all.

If you know how to code I’d suggest you try simulating two bodies with random masses traveling at random velocities. You’ll see that many times they do swing apart and a few times they will directly collide but there is a wide range of stable orbits. Sure, if you wanted to get perfectly circular orbits, you’d need to be more precise, but circular orbits are not necessary at all. Most orbits are at least a little eccentric, and eccentric orbits are still stable orbits. Importantly, they can be created without precision.

Next, while binary systems are assumed to form during star formation as you assert, the quote I listed from Wikipedia says it is possible for binary systems to form via gravitational capture.

Anyway, since that wasn’t enough evidence for you I decided to find an example of a combination system. Fortunately I didn’t have to look very far.

Alpha Centauri (our nearest stellar neighbor and triple star system) is a specific example of stable combination. Rigil and Toliman are main sequence stars that likely formed the way you listed since they are very close together and roughly the same size with slightly more massive than the other.

However, Proxima Centauri is a red dwarf that orbits the two circumbinarily. It is .2 light years from the other two which means it is roughly 5% of the distance to us from the barycenter of Toliman and Rigil.

However, despite the distance, it is “gravitationally bound” to them and its orbit has a 30deg inclination relative to them. This out of plane motion, the large distance, and the eccentricity of its orbit, imply that Proxima Centauri did not form from in the ways you listed. It may have formed in the same nebula as the other two, but it also very possibly could have travelled before getting gravitationally captured. In either case, it was gravitationally captured by some means and has formed a stable system despite having an out of plane velocity.

Proxima Centauri even has circumstellar planets, and its small mass and large distance from the binary pair mean it very easily could be stolen from the system if another main sequence star passed closely by. So it’s a great example of this “bonding” I’ve described.

Now magnets. Your magnet analogy is not similar to these scenarios because electromagnetism is highly directional. I don’t think you’d be able to combine systems of spinning magnets in any stable configuration other than a straight (spinning) line of them. However—as shown by the Alpha Centauri system—it is very possible to form stable multistellar systems from the combination of two stable systems.

Lastly you are correct that there are many many differences between atoms and gravitational systems. I mean shit, we don’t even know how atoms really work. String theory and particle physics don’t play nice and there are many more theories for unifying relativity and quantum physics that would impact what the “true” internal structure of an atom is like.

However, as mentioned in my last comment, that is not the point! My point was simply that there are some similarities and that you could do certain things with them that would have chemistry analogues. Does that make sense? I’m not saying “these are the same” I’m saying “it might be possible to use these in some similar ways to atoms.” And I’ve now found proof it is possible because of this debate, but the point of my original comment was curiosity/discovery not debate.

Firstly, you are wrong. Binary star systems are a good example this. Secondly, thank you for helping me find more similarities between atoms and stellar systems and learn new words.

From the Wikipedia page for Binary Star System:

it is not impossible that some binaries might be created through gravitational capture between two single stars

Again is it unlikely? Hell yeah but I covered that point previously and the important part is that it is still possible.

Next, I need to thank you because you helped me find out that your “nuclear type reactions” happen and are similar to nuclear combination of atoms.

The orbits of planets in a binary system can be circumbinary which would be the “nuclear type” as you called it where the stars (or most massive body in the system) begin orbiting each other and planets orbit around both as though they were a single massive object.

However, they can also be circumstellar (as I described previously) meaning the two stars orbit each other but the planets orbit only one star each. This would be much more analogous to an ionic bond (though again without polarity) where two atoms are attracted to one another but do not share electrons.

Furthermore, it seems there is even more similarity as the circumbinary systems are more unlikely to break apart but the circumstellar type require stars to be far enough away would make them more easily dislodged. This seems similar to nuclear decomposition being much harder to pull off than chemical decomposition.

But wait, there’s more.

Some binary stars orbit each other so closely that they share the same atmosphere, giving the system a peanut shape. While most such contact binary systems are stable, some do become unstable and either eject one partner or eventually merge.

Even if the stars get close enough to touch, they can still be differentiated and are “stable” This seems much more like a nucleus since the “particles” are packed tightly together and the whole “becoming unstable means I eject a particle” kind of screams radioactive decay.

Anyway, there are “periodic solutions” (stable configurations that follow a cycle) to the three body problem and there are likely some for n-bodies. So contrary to your assertion, it is possible to make a stable system with multiple massive bodies that do not combine “nuclear type”.

As you can see from the images on the Wikipedia page, these systems have unique shapes which is what I was referring to as the analog of proteins having specific shapes.

Lastly, the first line of my original comment was that yes, these solar sustems are reminiscent of a wrong model of the atom. I’m well aware of the structure of electron orbitals and Schrödinger’s equations for electron position etc.

My point was not to say that stellar systems are structured just like atoms or behave exactly like them either. My point wasn’t even that there are more similarities that differences. It was simply that there are similarities between the two and that you could build some analogous structures/chemistry with gravitational systems.

Oh yeah eventually they will. But eventually protons will decay. Could you do something with these bonded “atoms” before they collapse? Probably not as much as you can before an atom decays but yeah you’ve definitely got at least a few million years for most systems right?

While others have correctly pointed out that the model of atom which is reminiscent of a solar system is not accurate. I would like to point out that systems of massive bodies in space could possibly be used in some ways similar to atoms.

The closer you get the stronger the pull is, but if you’re going fast enough, you can find stable configurations. This means it is possible (though incredibly unlikely) that if two solar systems interacted the right way, you could get a stable combined system. Two systems could orbit each other with or without sharing planets which is reminiscent of certain kinds of atomic bonds. You can even have system interactions where one system steals a planetary body from another. Sure there’s no ionic bonding because gravity isn’t polar but it’s still possible to create “bonds” of some kind.

Also, the specific configuration, total mass, and number of massive bodies in each system would affect how it interacts with any other system, kind of like chemical properties of elements.

If you throw a massive enough thing fast enough you can rip a solar system apart kind of like how throwing a neutron or nucleus fast enough at an atom can break it apart.

Complex gravitational systems can have specific and often complex physical structures/shape too, which could be argued as similar to the way proteins have complex and specific shapes. These shapes would change the way the systems interact with other systems because gravity and distance are related. Again creating these stable configurations would be unlikely but still not impossible.

Hell, there are even weirder similarities too. Stars and black holes “decay” and the collision of planets can yield different numbers of “particles” which interact in new ways because their mass is different.

Sure, gravitational systems are not nearly as stable as atoms, they probably couldn’t be ordered into a table like elements, and do not operate on exactly similar forces like atoms. System-chemistry would also be very directional which would be tedious, but I think it’s cool that it could be possible to do similar things with gravitational systems as you can with atoms, even if they don’t have similar structure or internal properties.

I’m fairly certain it’s potpourri which is not a drink. When you heat it up on a stove it’s meant to fill your house with its scent. “pot pourri” directly translates to “rotten pot” which I think is accurate because I’ve never been fond of the smell

Well actually it’s the other way around. The reason imaginary numbers were invented was to solve a problem we’d been crying over for centuries.

Then, as in most cases, solving one problem opens the door to millions of other problems like why in the fuck does the universe use these imaginary numbers we made up to solve cube roots?

Why is i a core part of the unit circle with like e^i*pi ? “Oh that’s because i is just perpendicular to the real number line” ?! Say that sentence again, how the fuck did we go from throwing sharp sticks to utterly deranged sentences like that? More importantly why do utterly deranged sentences like that accurately describe our universe and what is the next ludicrous math concept we’re going to discover is integral to the function of the universe?

ANSYS my beloved

Bro are you actually able to plan and make routines? Because I definitely tried this multiple times only to fail repeatedly until I got meds.

I guess everyone’s ADHD is different, so maybe this works for you and will work for OP, but this kind of advice never worked for me no matter how many times or how hard I tried.

One of the effects of me getting medicated is being able to make phone calls and schedule meetings. Do I still hate that everyone would rather I call and stumble over my words and forget what I’m going to say rather than let me write an email that allows me to clearly and concisely ask my questions? Yes, fuck them for doing that. Hell, it’s stupid and inefficient to try and find times your schedules are both open to have a meeting when you could just write a fucking email and reply to it when your schedule allows. But yeah, anyway, now I actually have enough executive function to make those phone calls and meetings when I have to.

Also here’s a reminder to take your meds because I definitely would have forgotten to take mine if I hadn’t seen this post and remembered.

“Excerpt from the Kamasaura, an ancient reptilian text on sexuality, eroticism and emotional fulfillment.”

Holy shit I just had a memory flashback. Did anyone else play a game online that had orbs that looked like this that you had to drag through like a maze without touching the walls and avoiding other obstacles?

Edit: found it, it’s literally called “orb” and it is on coolmathgames

Edit 2: yep just as frustrating as I remember

Bro I know the feeling. I’m still in uni, but I’ll have my life put together, getting homework done on time, cleaning regularly etc. and then there’ll be like something wrong with one of my grades and I procrastinate writing the email to my professor for no reason at all and suddenly I can’t do anything and I get overwhelmed by everything I’m not doing and that just makes me dread doing anything.

Anyway, sorry you’re feeling depressed right now. But if you want my opinion, if it’s impacting your life negatively, I don’t think it matters if someone has it worse than you. If your life could be better, that’s what matters.

Honestly, finding a psychiatrist and setting up the appointment was probably the hardest part of getting medicated. I put it off for multiple years even though I knew that I probably had ADHD, but let me tell you, that first day on my meds, sitting in class and realizing I am actually getting information out of the lecture, it was so weird. Like wow people actually learn things in class? I can actually write emails and make phone calls without having to build up the motivation over several days? I regret not doing it sooner.

Anyway, if you feel like medication would help, once you get your “pinball machine” running again, I think getting diagnosed may be worth a try. You deserve to try and make your life better just as much as others do, even if you don’t have it as bad as they do.

Yeah healthcare is fucked (in the USA at least). But yeah I take them as needed. I’ve been taking them most everyday for a while though because I’m making some major life changes right now. Surprisingly they do help with anxiety and depression too ig. Like I get anxious about doing stuff and then I do the stuff and I’m less anxious.

Tasks seem much less stressful when you know you can actually complete them.

Also, I would try out the Strattera if I were in your position even if you don’t think it will work. Worst case scenario you can say “this isn’t working for me” and maybe get something else, and if that doesn’t work it’s not like you’re worse off for having tried it. But best case scenario it could work! Who knows, it’s possible it could be the best drug for you. Even if it only works a tiny bit that’s still better than nothing yeah?

If you can’t get prescribed meds, I’d probably try caffeine pills. I used to use Bang energy drinks before taking tests before I got medicated. Not the healthiest thing, I bet caffeine pills are probably better, but whatever works right?

Speed. lol

Seriously though, I’m on 15mg adderall (dextrin-amp amphetamine) twice a day. I was on methylphenidate originally (started at 20mg ramped up to 60mg) but it made me kind of sick to my stomach and wore off fast. Upping the dose made it last longer but also made it feel worse physically

Everyone warned me that adderall would be much stronger and have a risk of addiction, but that’s mostly been the opposite of my experience. Even compared to 10mg of methylphenidate it seems softer.

It sits better in my stomach, doesn’t make me as anxious, doesn’t give me a high, and I still have to like force myself to take it. Also I haven’t noticed any withdrawal symptoms when I’ve abruptly stopped taking them.

Only issue is that I’m not hungry and if I take them too late in the day it will keep me awake. But that’s definitely worth the ability to actually do stuff lol

If you get prescribed meds, you’ll probably get methylphenidate and it might work for you. My advice is dont be afraid to ask to try different meds if they aren’t working for you. Everyone is different, some people I know take like combinations of different meds throughout the day. Maybe you’ll be like that or maybe the first meds you try will work perfectly.

But you won’t know till you try and in my opinion it’s better to know a medication doesn’t work than to miss out on something that could vastly improve your life.

Also sorry this is long, I’m kind of just writing stuff I wish someone had told me when I started.

I did not like the idea of needing to take meds everyday. I didn’t want to have to become dependent on medication. I was afraid that I’d get addicted or that it’d be detrimental to my health. But honestly, I’m very very glad I tried this.

Basically none of my fears happened. I don’t need to take my meds everyday, I just know that if I do I’ll probably be more productive. So I take them when I know I have stuff that needs doing that day.

I am not dependent on my meds. I have the opposite problem where I irrationally just don’t want to take them or I procrastinate taking them. I’m not addicted at all.

But the positive effects are there. Even on the meds that made me super anxious and kind of sick I was able to go from the lowest 3% in one of my classes to the top 10% last semester.

Also if you get anxiety from your meds, especially the physical symptoms like rapid heartbeat, beta blockers can help with that. I got prescribed propranolol and even 5mg of it when taken with my meds helped mitigate the whole fight or flight anxiety from my meds.

What’s weird is that now I’m on supposedly stronger meds I haven’t really felt the need to take them much.

Anyway, my advice is to try it out, and if the meds don’t work for you, or if they do but they have enough negative effects that you can’t bring yourself to take them, try to find new ones. Try to find meds or med combinations that work and when you do, it will change your life for the better.