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…?

I'd say, kind of... Yeah jackfruits are like apples but yellow(edit:the part you eat). And also big. And also tastes different. Also have spikes. But they are still like apples.

Sure you can imagine it like that, and one more note, the components of the units are very different on stellar system, unlike indifferentiable subatomic particles. This means you can't have any named atom since all of them are different. It also emmits energy from star. Still yes you could imagine it like an atom, and fit the crieterias you mentioned(which I think must include a bit more which would disqualify stellar systems from being atom, but that's your classification).

For another system which may fit your atomic desciption, we could also try scaling up the normal atom! That is, make electrically charged macroscopic bodies as nucleus and electrons. This I think in principle will work much better than gravitational atom. We can have repulsion as well as attraction which would be enough to balance out for stability. We would still get a planetary model(Rutherford model) of such an atom.

Also unfortunately, there aren't many forces in physics, so i'm afraid i can't find more analogous systems. Anyway thank you for the curious exploration<3

I wasnt saying it was not possible for gravitational captured system, but bringing your two atoms together and they bond is not possible(because it keeps falling into each other). It's the (outward)momentum that keeps such a system stable. It would not have form a stable system when you keep it near without any velocity to spin around each other, it will not form a stable system--another dissimiliarity from atoms.

Its hard to make a stable system with magnets so i said perfectly setting velocities. As you mentioned, a straight line spinning was what I imagined when writing. But i'm asking if you set it and made it work, would you count that also as some kind of atomic model?

If you are just saying there are some similiarities with atoms, sure! But then many things has some similiarity to atomic model. Your examples sure could be regarded as such atomic bonds philosophically. I couldn't imagine stealing proxima centauri as bonding, since its already so far away from "nucleus". Or in your analogy it could be atom held by van der Walls force being removed... man... I gave you another point

And I don't know If there would be a magnetic bonding scenario but I think it might be possible with complicated calculations and perfect initial conditions. Also what about some ferromagnetic metal moving around a magnet?

What I am trying to point out is that any-force system could be then regarded like capable of being like an atomic model with chemical-like properties.

What are thoose colour bars at the top panel and bottom of side panel?

Binary star system exist because they are revolving around a common center, and its outwards momentum is holding them in place.

The binary systems are formed from splitting of one star or in the formation of the star itself. In your atom model, chemical bonds like bringing together two atoms and they form stable bonds is not possible. If you say this gravitational atom model have more close relation with real atom model than differences, then I could also say two magnets in space which spins around each other due to magnetic force and the centrifugal force(which came from inertia at initial conditions) balancing is also analogous to an atom. You have to perfectly set the velocites and magnetic moments but you will get something like a binary system. I would conclude there are bigher differences than simple structural similiarities to a (wrong) model of atom

*Be the lid that opens as well as close

Not just to close

A bug with smooth af transition?

The purpose of a cap is to both open and close the lid. A seal is usually used to keep it tight

Unlike proton decay, the "atoms" in your system will accelerate towards each other and will not make any kind of "stable" system as you have mentioned. A chemical bond analogue is not formed but instead a nucler reaction type will occur. But should we call pressing two clay pieces together as some nuclear type process? I don't think so.

Not to mention electron does not revolve or have ant kind of orbit. Its too different to be called similiar

Well due to absence of gravitational repulsion, the bonded "atoms" would come closer and collapse right?

Its been there forever. And you can disable it

Her handcuffs...