Friends, as new observations are continually emerging and they are published that support and agree my cosmic model (toe 1992); I put this case referent to the observations y measurements made on a three-star system.
These observations fully fit my model for multiple stars; in this case regarding the formation of a three-star system.
In the systems it has been observed that two stars rotate about themselves and their centre of attraction, and a third remains as a support pivot for the previous two. (see drawing)
It is exactly what my model proposes and that is produced with total similarity to what atoms do in molecules.
Let us remember that the stars are similar copies and equivalent to the atoms, with the same elements, structure, charges, laws and acting physical forces.

----------

The mathematical language and physical logic of the Cosmos:

There is no doubt that mathematics is a powerful language for measuring and expressing physical phenomena.
However, as a language, with it we can tell and expose the truth, or simply lie and hide that physical truth that surrounds us.
(For example, we can say that the area of the square is the side squared a = L^2, and we will be expressing a truth; or on the contrary we can blatantly lie saying that the area of the square is equal to, a = (L^2)/2)
And how can we distinguish the truth?
-- Of course, with practical measurement or with thought and logical deduction.
Well, we can do the same with the mathematical measurements of the micro and macrocosm:
If by observation we discover that the same elements* occur in the microcosm as in the macrocosm, then we should think that the same physical laws are fulfilled and they should be measured and explained with the same mathematical procedures.
(* Atomic nucleus and nucleus of stars; orbiting planets and orbiting electrons; moons on planets and neutrinos on electrons; equality in the ratio of nuclear matter and orbitals in atoms and stars; equality in the ratio of the periphery of atoms and stars; magnetic fields in atoms and stars; etc.)
However, and against all physical logic, we invented different mathematical laws and methods to measure the microcosm, which tell us that nothing is alike between the microcosm and the macrocosm.
Therefore, in this case I think we would be lying mathematically, simply to try to manage the microcosm at our own discretion.