Some pictures of the
Does the sun wobble?
Spectroscopic detection of exoplanet systems
Wobbling stars and Einstein
and volcanic eruption
History of this site
Geschichte dieser Site(deutsch)
Some exoplanet news
Some unrelated notes
Why an understanding
of the sun is so important
History of exoplanet discovery
When was it discovered?
Old website (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.)
Conditions for life on
interesting to see when the different facts that are presented
on this site will get acknowledged by physics
SuperComputing on home PC's
Just three citations
which stand for thousands:
"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."
"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)
Planets outside our solar
system far out in the universe is the hottest topic 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 ( in 1995 ). And now we have already
more than 500 discoveries...
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
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
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.
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 one of the main causes 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++.
A prerequisite 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 one of the main reasons for the energy produced in the sun (because of
tidal forces). This would solve another big
question of astronomy: the missing masses or how they are called today, the
dark masses or dark
Because if the energy produced in the sun is due to mechanical
forces and not fusion, then big stars have not to glow by
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 (only in
the infrared they may be visible). 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.)
The theories build around dark
matter can be taken as disproved by now.
have found proves for this and at
the same time strenghtening the here said.
The XENON detector which should detect
dark matter delivers only negative results.
See also here.
For all who are not at home in astronomy 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. In 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.
Finally, after I informed in 1991
our leading German physics institutes of the 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 more than 400! And this well
understood quite in contrast to the fact that in 1991
astronomers and astro-phycisits 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 still 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 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, no links here. 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 won't take long till
the here written is fully accepted. 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
Others speak already of 70-80%. Read again
these pages and you will know it's exactly 100 percent. May be
some wobble so faint that we can't measure it, but that changes
nothing on the fact that all 'shining' stars have planets.
Others tell in 2009 : "There could be one hundred billion Earth-like planets in our galaxy...".
and Berkeley says in end of 2010: "Earth-Sized
Alien Planets May Be Surprisingly Common" and "25%
of Sun-like stars have Earth-like planets.. (and)...there
could be even more Earth-size planets"
first cosmic census estimates at least 50 billion planets
in our galaxy, the Milky Way. And this in contrast to the fact that just 20 years ago astronomers and phycisists told
us we're the only planetary system in the whole universe.
Evidence from observations lead
now in 2013 more and more
researchers to the same conclusion: "Extrapolating
from Kepler's currently ongoing observations and results from other detection
techniques, it looks like practically all Sun-like 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)
(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" .
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).
And much to the surprise of astronomers
orbiting in the opposite direction to the rotation of their host star,
thereby disproving one of the central hypotheses of todays astro-physics.
20 years now (!) these
papers (A&A,Jan 2011) are first proves of the calculations and
descriptions on this site: "The
barycentric motion of exoplanet host stars: tests of solar spin-orbit coupling"
or this pdf: "Does
a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar
Cycle?" (more under
new facts and links)
Copyright © R,Cooper-Bitsch