Who invented it or sound the mort to redefine history
Success has many fathers, failure none.
The race is open to redefine history... Everyone has its own story to tell who was at the origin of the extrasolar planet hunt. Here only some examples.
The negative side of Wikipedia shows up here, that everyone can define its own history. Wikipedia in whole is used extensively in this case to produce false tracks and false historic facts. Another example. There are so many and everyday a new one is added so that it seems not necesary to care about.
But the web in whole is used to redefine history. Only some excerpts out of this "redefinition bussiness" :
Another article (Nature! Incredibly. They take part in this game. The links are rather dead) The referenced article is from 1992, not 1991, confirmed 1994. A naiv question: Is a pulsar a normal star like our sun ?
Another (click on more info..)
Another (Compare this with this description!)
Seems everyone has some other dates to tell.
Besides articles everyone produces these days graphs (seems these folks think that it looks impressively scientific) with exoplanet discoveries in 1988 or even as early as the fiftheeths or lists in which suddenly exoplanets apear which you don't find in any other list and so on... The bending of historic facts has many aspects.
In the list Compiled by California and Carnegie Planet Search you can find one single entry predating my letters and postings: HD 114762b, which is till today (Dec of 2009) not confirmed as an exoplanet (it seems to be a brown dwarf):
"If it turns out to be an exoplanet, it will be the first one ever detected...." . (eg Wikipedia HD 114762b ) Strange kind of science, why not list some other, even earlier found as "exoplanet, to be confirmed". And as you can read on this whole site, all stars will get confirmed as having exoplanets! Tip: use any star ever detected.
It only shows that those who publish such lists have till today not understood the subject we're talking about. Interesting is, that you don't find this planet on lists from scientific institutions! The most complete list at the moment or this list.
The same holds true for the assertion that an US-astronomer had already proposed in 1952 the use of powerful spectrographs to detect distant planets. (repeated in wikipedia and ...) Which shell express nothing else than that US-astronomers had the wisdom of wobbling stars since 1952! So it must be allowed to ask why they didn't find any extrasolar planet ? Instead they found exactly with this technique the BigBang !! In 1952 such an assertion was only worth a short laughter by astrophysic scientists. The whole story you can read on these pages later( So that those who like to bend historic facts have some work to do).
The same is true what concerns the n-body problem. While there are many "scientific" simulations of very authoritative institutions (no, no links..) out there which obviously never have heard anything about the n-body problem or simply didn't care about any theoretical foundations, the 'mainstream' scientific astro physics community found the chaos theory while investigating the n-body problem: "During all the attempts to analytically solve the n-body problem, the foundations were laid for chaos theory." or here: "Poincaré's work on the restricted three-body problem was the foundation of deterministic chaos theory." Poor old Poincaré shell be responsible for chaos theory! Hic! Or here: Simply put, anything more than two bodies in a system, and the solution can very quickly turn into one best exemplified by chaos theory. If you need more citations like this, search for yourself for "n-body chaos theory", you find sources of all kinds of authority.
Has anyone ever seen Jupiter move chaotically? Or the Earth? Or Saturn? Or Venus? No, the simple truth is that from generation to generation a false law was passed on in physics textbooks. And whats more astonishing: this law can be deduced as wrong by simple reasoning! You only must not follow the conventional way of thinking! But quite naturally, the prove you can only give with computers!
And one thing should be sure: if Newton or Gallilei would have had access to computers this law would have disappeared 300 or 400 years ago from physics textbooks!
Since the re-opening of this site on Dec.9 2009 the visitor count nearly doubles every week. Actual vistor count 55.000 (27.2.2010).
But what's perhaps more important is the quality of the visitors: very few come here via google/yandex/baidu/sogou/cuil/yahoo/altavista/alltheweb/searchcloud (244 of 38.000) , most come over direct links or word of mouth.
Afterwards there will come very intelligent people and ask: " why haven't you pubished in a scientific magazine?". Very simple. None would have accepted it. A breakdown of a whole part of a science building is unprecedented and simply not conceivable for most of us, editors of science magazines included. And if you don't believe me: there are many serious scientists in the net who tell that Einstein would have had no chance to publish his ideas today!