Sun's orbit and extrasolar planetary systems

What makes science tick or why before 1991 physicists and astronomers believed our solar system was the only one in the universe or why the stars as we see them on the night sky are in contradiction to todays physics theories

Just three citations which stand for thousands: "Astronomers have looked for planets around other stars for over 50 years, with little success. But in the mid-1990's that changed, and astronomers have been surprised ever since. " (http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/caryl/a10/lec21_2d.html)

"Ever since the first exoplanet was discovered in the mid-1990s, we’ve had an explosion of discoveries, revealing hundreds of strange worlds orbiting faraway stars." (The planetary society).

"No one would have predicted 10 years ago that we'd have any extrasolar planets. Even though we have now found more than 100 of them, these are still the early days in planet hunting." (Geoffrey Marcy 2003)

Planets outside our solar system far out in the universe is the hottest theme of astronomers and astrophysics these days. On these pages you can read why they were detected and why they were detected so late, now only 15 years back.

Further you can read why this disproves three of the main today used hypothesis in modern astrophysics and astronomy. Not by doubtfull and unprovable claims but by computer programs which are repeatable and verifiable by everyone. Data for these computer programs is from highly trustable federal instances (US and european) and accessible to everyone. If this would concern only astronomy and astrophysics one could say: 'if one or the other star gets classified wrong is of no concern to me'. No, the consequences out of these wrong hypothesis concern everyone, even more, human lives depend on and are endangered by these wrong hypothesis. Not to speak of the severe damage that the whole science experiences, starting by geology over biology over archaeology and and and....

When I studied physics in the 60th of the last century it was undisputed that the central star of our solar system – the sun, while rotating around the milky way - was eternally fixed in one of the focal points of the elliptical orbits of the planets Mercury to Pluto(poor old Pluto was degraded lately: it’s no more a planet, its just a planetoid by now).

According to this representation the barycenter of our solar system was thought to be inside the sun. Very eccentric to the center of the sun, but still inside the sun. Generations of highly intelligent mathematical geniuses had tried to describe our solar system in mathematical terms and had failed utterly on the n-body problem..

One problem was imminent to this representation: if the sun was fixed in the focal point of the ellipsis, how could the obvious energy production in the sun be explained? One of the explanations which was thought of till the 30ths of the last century was the energy delivered by the falling meteorites which hit the sun. In the good last the physicist community agreed 1937/1939 upon that the energy production was due to the hydrogen to helium burning and the proton-proton-reaction, the so called Bethe-Weizsäcker cycle. Here you can read some more on the neutrinos with multiple personality. By the way: the neutrino problem is far from solved!

While at university I tried myself too to solve the problem of the n-body problem – not theoretically but numerically. But without the help of a computer this proved to be practically irresolvable (without computer you may graphically or numerically find and assert or claim a course or orbit of the sun, but it is impossible to prove! You could even claim it in 1950 but any serious physics theorist would only have laughed about that! And to claim this without prove that this is the cause for the lighting produced in stars and the sun is sheer nonsense!). So I had to wait till the 1980th when computers (and their FPU’s) became mighty enough to run such simulations in finite time. One of my first programs on a 386 with FPU was thus a simulation of our solar system in C++. One of the main problems was to prove that the simulation stabilizes after a few turns to a stable outcome with differing starting conditions. This program evolved by and by – at first a 2d simulation, then 3d simulation, then a graphical output with possible rotation about all axes, numerical log files for all essential parameters etc.. It showed clearly and reproducible that the sun isn’t fixed in the center of gravity of our solar system but rotates itself around the barycenter of our solar system.

Now this course of the sun or orbit around the barycenter was by itself in the 1980s a sensational fact: because now it was easy to find other solar systems like ours out in space, you only had to watch out for ‘wobbling’ stars in the universe. But my intent went further: I wanted to prove that this course of the sun (or orbit around the gravitational center) was the reason for the energy produced in the sun (because of the unsteady motion and centrifugal forces on the sun). This would solve another big question of astronomy: the missing masses (or how they are called today: the dark masses or matter). Because if the energy produced in the sun is due to mechanical forces and not fusion, then big stars have not to glow by itself, they may be dark stars. Stars will in this case only shine and produce visible light if they have planets orbiting them, without planets they are much too dark to be visible even with our biggest telescopes today. But they are visible by their gravitational effects: namely as gravitational lenses.(Another problem – the missing energy or dark energy how it is called today is connected with another hypothesis – the big bang. We won’t discuss this here. Only this: weak hypothesis can make a lot of trouble.)

The theories build around dark matter can be taken as disproved by now. Different researchers worldwide have found proves for this and at the same time strenghtening this theory.

There are till today many 'live' examples in the net how phycisists by and by in the last years understood the wobbling of the stars and the consequences out of this. Another example is the history of the wickipedia article. More and more sites 'second source' the program in old_de.htm or old_eng.htm and try also to prove the here stated connection between the solar flares and the solar orbit. A more scientific approach to understand this connection. Another. And if you want to experience the historical process of this revolution in science by yourself you can search for 'solar orbit' or 'solar system'. You find on scientific pages still the fixed sun but also on more recent pages the wobbling sun. And it is now already normal subject matter in some universities. Another university. Nearly everyday another university adds up. And scientific papers treat it by now already as normal fact.

Although I don't follow all the conclusions in this paper, it is surely worth reading because the author is one of the world wide most reknown scientists: Journal of coastal research, Special Issue 50,2007

The same is true for this paper of a world wide well reknown chemist: The sun's origin (you shouldn't be astonished if you can't load anything in the scietific annotations.)

If you’re at home in astronomy you will by now surely have understood my headline. For all others a short explanation: by observing the galaxies with the best telescopes available today, you’ll find that the galaxies turn much too fast on the outer borders for the masses visible. With other words, there must be a whole lot more masses in the center of the galaxies than those visible. And since the gravitational law is (with modifications by Einsteins law), as the name implies a law and not a hypothesis, there is a big problem for physics.

Now in closing I can finally explain the headline: What makes science tick: After I informed in 1991 our leading German physics institutes of the course or orbit of the sun it was only four years later, in 1995 that the first planetary system outside our home planetary system was found by Swiss astronomers by doppler shift measurements. From there on every year more systems were found. Till today 343! And this well noted quite in contrast to the fact that in 1991 astronomers told us that we’re the only planetary system in the whole universe! Now as you can see, this phenomenological part of my explanation was well accepted, but the energy production of the sun is further believed to be due to self sustained atomic fusion.

We all are used to think of physics as an exact science, as its laws must be reproducible by anyone in any place at anytime. But today’s physical problems in the femto atomic world or the macro world allow only a peephole view to the underlying problems – in the case of astronomy we see the universe only from our extremely small base, the earth, and so it is no wonder that we find in physics similarly weak hypothesis as in the ‘inexact sciences’, the social sciences or in medicine. And while the "wobbling" Sun was in 1991 not accepted by scientists you find today in the web enough professors and whole universities which claim they have found my findings at least one year before me. But to claim and to prove are different things. And the same people who didn't accept this theory in 1991 have today on their websites Java-applets which show how the central star of a planetary system “wobbles” under the gravitational forces of big planets. Since I don't want to denounce anyone, here the wikipedia article, which stands for all these sites. And they explain in long and bloomy words how today “exoplanets” are found by this method. But at the same time they underline that this is only a small extension to Keplers law, so they don’t have to explain where from they got their brilliant new knowledge.

But it seems it wont take long till the here written is fully accepted. You read no more 'missing masses', they are already 'dark masses' by now. And now you can already hear astronomers say: 'planets are no big deal! They are commonplace! And 40 or more percent of the stars must have planets!' Others speak already of 70-80%. Read again these pages and you will know it's exactly 100 percent. Maybe some wobble so faint that we can't measure it, but that changes nothing on the fact that all 'shining' stars have planets.

And you can already hear: 'Nobody knows how brown dwarfs form'. Which is only a very small step away from: 'Nobody knows how stars form'. If you follow todays literature which states: 'Brown dwarfs form like stars'(The Brown Dwarf — Exoplanet Connection, J. W. Mason,Springer 2008) this is already today a synonyme. Even clearer: "(We) have (currently) no definition of what a planet is". Which is nothing else than the negative expression of: "We have currently no definition what a star is" .

By scrutinizing the planets found so far astronomers more and more realize that many of the planets found have masses which classify them according to todays definition as stars, disproving thereby todays theories on stars (and proving everything written on these pages thereby). Read more..

My old websites (2002-2005) with further explanations (Some links on these pages point today to nowhere land. I don't change this because I think this is a document.)

Since 2002 there are a lot of new facts that you should read!

How exoplanet systems are detected and why this disproves the BIGBANG- theory (and many other hypotheses too...)

Why since now already nearly 20 years earthquakes and volcanic eruptions could have been predicted

Astronomy of 21th century

Global warming

History of this site

General links to the theme

Some unrelated notes

Success has many fathers, failure none. While one part of the physics community is still trying to understand this revolution, the other part is already bussy sharing the loot.

Bookmark this site, nearly everyday there are some news! mailto a friend