Some more facts that the conventional theory on stars and planets and their formation out of a disk of dust (which originates in speculations of german philosopher Kant und french mathematician Laplace in the 18th century) must get corrected

  1. Already the very first discoveries of exoplanets (planets outside our solar system) in 1995 by swiss astronomers (Michel Mayor & Didier Queloz) proved that the conventional theory of formation of our solar system (out of a disk of dust) must be wrong: big planets in the direct neighborhood of the central star could not come into existence according to this theory. But most of the  early findings of planets were in the direct neighborhood of the central star, some with orbit times in the range of days! (eg. For OGLE-TR-113, the parent star is of F-type (slightly hotter and more massive than the Sun) and is located at a distance of about 6000 light-years. The orbiting planet is about 35% heavier and its diameter is 10% larger than that of Jupiter, the largest planet in the solar system. It orbits the star once every 1.43 days at a distance of only 3.4 million km (0.0228 AU). In the solar system, Mercury is 17 times farther away from the Sun)
  2. Most of the found planets have ORBITAL ECCENTRICITIES (some extreme), absolutely incompatible with todays theory on birth of solar systems.
  3. All found planets in the mass range of  brown dwarfs are in contradiction to this theory and to fusion theory.  'Stars and brown dwarfs form (..) in the middle of a swirling nebula'. But now you can hear : 'No one now knows how brown dwarfs form....'
  4. The orbit of planet XO-3b is tilted about 37 degrees from the star's equator. Todays theory holds that such a misalignment must have occurred as a result of a disturbance sometime after the planet's formation, according to a statement released by MIT, but they don't know yet what could  have caused this strange orbit of XO-3b.
  5. Planet Hat P-7b orbits it's star even more tildet: 86 degrees from the stars equator.
  6. HD80606b's orbit is not only tilted but at the same time highly excentric (e=0.93).
  7. COROT-Exo-1b... scientists determined that the celestial body appeared to have a 77 degree tilt in its orbit. 
  8. Astronomers say that, at this point, between 25 and 50 exoplanets of all the identified ones have orbital tilts higher than 30 degrees. So it's easy to predict that soon we will get to know many many more tilted orbits...
  9. Instead of traveling around its host star in the same direction the star spins, as todays theory demands, WASP-17 is orbiting backwards. Scientists think WASP-17, got flipped (hic!) around during a near collision with another planet during its youth.
  10. In Sep 2009 several giant extrasolar planets were found, all orbiting in nearest distance of their parent stars and have orbits so tilted that the planets travel backward relative to their parent stars’ rotation.
  11. WASP-3b has a mass of 1.6-1.8 Jupiter masses and it transists its host star every 1.8 days. This short rotation time is typical for the planets found till today. The explanation is easy: they are the most easy to find. But hard to explain how they should have received that rotational pulse sometime in their lifetime. Such close orbits get explained by theorists by migration. The planet is thought to form further out and then migrate inwards.
  12. WASP-18b appears to be locked in a death spiral with its star. The planet is about 10 times the size of Jupiter and appears to be very close to its star. WASP-18 is so large that it's triggering huge plasma tides on the star's surface, which in turn  distorts the planet's orbit. Even crazier: the planet orbits the star in less than 22 1/2 hours. Planet discoverer Coel Hellier predicts that within the next million years, the planet will spiral right into the star.
  13. Very similar to Wasp-18 : SWEEPS-10. Orbit time of the planet 10 hours.
  14. PSR B1620-26 b  appears to be orbiting around  two stars in a binary system. Its parent stars are a small, dense white dwarf star and a quickly rotating pulsar. Unnecessary to say that this contradicts today's theory...
  15. Binary system Epsilon Indi Ba and  Epsilon Indi Bb are  believed to be  two T dwarfs with spectral types T1 and T6, and masses 47+/-10 and 28+/-7 MJup, respectively. They are about 2.65 AU apart. Unnecessary to say that this contradicts today's theory...

 

These are at least 15 (not counted the duplicate cases!) severe contradictions to the 'disk of dust' or 'swirling nebula' theory.

To be continued...

 

 

But lets come to the main point: according to conventional theory stars are Deuterium burners which generate energy from nuclear reactions. According to conventional theory (now no more accesible to the broad public, see instead here) this discriminates them from planets. So this theory needs a fixed point of mass where stars begin (so called "brown dwarfs") and where planets end. Lets see this "definition of a planet":

 

"A ``planet'' is an object that has a mass between that of Pluto and the Deuterium-burning threshold*   and that forms in** orbit around an object that can generate energy by nuclear reactions. "

IAU Definition of a ``Planet'':
The International Astronomical Union position statement.

* Deuterium Burning Limit: Objects less massive than 13 Jupiter masses never burn Deuterium nor generate significant energy from any nuclear reactions. Fortuitously, this Deuterium-burning limit at 13 Mjup resides near the upper-end of the observed planet mass distribution. Thus 13 Jupiter masses constitutes an arbitrary but doubley motivated limit.

Corollary #1:    Observations may enhance but not authenticate planet status.

Corollary #2:    Sharp parameter boundaries for the domain of "planets" can be neither physically nor empirically justified at this time. Objects which have masses and formation histories near the perimeter of the adopted parameter domain constitute part of a natural continuum.

** this  is a typo in the original text. I don't dare to correct it, else someone says I manipulated a citation..

 

 

This is a statistical mass distribution of the planets found so far(not quite up to date, the found 'planets' keep getting bigger and bigger): (citet from exoplanets.org)

A more detailed survey of the planets found so far you find below (Better here or here or here, actually at the moment there are 358 , this site 413(jan 2010)  planets found so far). The first thing you will notice immediatedly that in this list there are at least 4 "planets" which shouldn't be in the list: HD162020 (14.4 Mjup), HD202206(17.5Mjup), HD137510(25.63 Mjup), HD168443c(17.2Mjup) and nearly 10 which should according to earlier definitions of a star (around 10 Mjup) not be in that list. Expresis verbis, which are according to the above definition Stars, not Planets(which according to the rules shouldn't orbit stars and should shine).

Newer exoplanet lists list depending on the site 17 planets above 10 Mjup, 34 above 10 Mjup(dec 2009) with biggest planet having at least 25 Mjup and 16 above 15Mjup! (since I already know that there will be many who don't find them and tell I give false figures: they are on different lists, according to the method how they were found), 31 above 10 Mjup (dec 2009) with 3 above 20 Mjup (watch out, their sorting algorithm has a bug), 32 above 10Mjup(dec 2009) and 14 above 15 Mjup and 4 above 20 Mjup. Remember the IAU definition above: 'Fortuitously, this Deuterium-burning limit at 13 Mjup resides near the upper-end of the observed planet mass distribution. Thus 13 Jupiter masses constitutes an arbitrary but doubley motivated limit. '

 

It is obvious that the new 2008 IAU definition of a planet carefully omits any delimination towards stars. But this means nothing else than - considered the massive planets found - now the definition of stars is at disposal. Actual literature on the subject rather complete here (last edited dec. 28 2009)

 

 

Calculation of mass:

But lets have a closer look at how this data is gained. Nearly all of the planets detected so far are detected by Doppler survey ,ie by spectroscopic analysis of the light emitted by the wobbling central star (see here ). But with this method you can only tell that the accompanying planet can not be smaller than a certain value. How much mass the planet really has, no one knows. It can have 10, 100, 1000 times the mass that you get by calculating the mass out of the spectroscopic displacement.

Lets view this more exactly. Nearly all of the stars investigated so far are that far away that even with the best telescopes today you cannot see the planets directly nor the wobbling of the central star. So the displacement of known spectral lines is taken as calculation basis for the extend of wobbling of the central star due to an orbiting planet. But this whole calculation gives only true figures if our view to the star is absolutely in the rotation plane of the orbiting planet - which will seldom be the case, if ever. If we don't look straight into the rotation plane, we get false figures, the mass of the planet will be in reality much higher. This is easy to understand. Up to 45 degrees, the error is not that big:

Inclination of 45 degree of the orbit of the planet. (error 1.42 or sqt of 2).

Inclination of the orbit 87 degrees: error = 19.1, the planet has nearly 20 times more mass than calculated. But since you got in reality 3 axis of freedom the error will be even greater! (For the physics or mathematical layman: they multiply. And for instance 20*20 gives a 400 times greater mass.) The more you approach in only one direction a 90 degree orbit, the mass of the planet goes to 100 times the mass, to 1000 times, it can even nearly go to infinty! Statistically there is absolutely no predominant direction to assume. Now if you apply these consequences (conservatively!) to the list below it turns out that according to the above given definition a great deal of these Planets are Stars !!! (And not 'brown dwarfs' which according to todays definition end at 80Mjup) If you take newer lists from the net even more. Stars which obviously don't burn Deuterium - despite they should. Stars which orbit Stars! (Actually they are no stars, because there is no difference betwen Stars and Planets)

 

 

Masses and Orbital Characteristics of All Known Extrasolar Planets

Compiled by California and Carnegie Planet Search
http://exoplanets.org/planet_table.shtml

                                                    ICRS 2000.0 coordinates*
             M sin i    Per    a          K   Mstar -------------+----------
             (Mjup)     (d)  (AU)   e   (m/s) (suns)     R.A.    |    Dec
-----------------------------------------------------------------+----------
  0 hd73256    1.85    2.548 0.037 0.04 267.0  1.05 |  8 36 23.0 | -30  02  15
  1 hd83443    0.41    2.985 0.04  0.05  58.0  0.79 |  9 37 11.8 | -43  16  19
  2 hd46375    0.25    3.024 0.04  0.04  34.5  1.00 |  6 33 12.6 |   5  27  47
  3 hd179949   0.98    3.093 0.04  0.00 118.0  1.24 | 19 15 33.2 | -24  10  45
  4 hd187123   0.51    3.097 0.04  0.02  68.0  1.06 | 19 46 58.1 |  34  25  10
  5 tauboo     4.13    3.312 0.05  0.01 471.4  1.30 | 13 47 16.0 |  17  27  24
  6 bd-103166  0.48    3.488 0.05  0.07  59.9  1.10 | 10 58 28.8 | -10  46  13
  7 hd75289    0.44    3.509 0.05  0.01  53.5  1.15 |  8 47 41.0 | -41  44  14
  8 hd209458   0.67    3.525 0.05  0.11  86.5  1.05 | 22  3 10.8 |  18  53   4
  9 hd76700    0.19    3.971 0.05  0.13  25.0  1.00 |  8 53 55.0 | -66  48   4
 10 51peg      0.46    4.231 0.05  0.01  55.0  1.06 | 22 57 27.9 |  20  46   7
 11 upsandb    0.69    4.617 0.059 0.01  70.2  1.30 |  1 36 48.0 |  41  24  23
 12 hd49674    0.11    4.950 0.06  0.17  13.1  1.00 |  6 51 30.5 |  40  52   5
 13 hd68988    1.92    6.276 0.07  0.15 189.7  1.20 |  8 18 22.0 |  61  27  38
 14 hd168746   0.23    6.403 0.065 0.08  27.0  0.92 | 18 21 49.8 | -11  55  21
 15 hd217107   1.30    7.126 0.07  0.14 140.2  0.98 | 22 58 15.5 |  -2  23  43
 16 hd162020   14.4    8.428 0.074 0.28 813.0  0.70 | 17 50 38.4 | -40  19   6
 17 hd130322   1.02   10.720 0.088 0.04 115.0  0.89 | 14 47 32.8 |  -0  16  52
 18 hd108147   0.40   10.890 0.104 0.40  27.3  1.20 | 12 25 46.0 | -64   1  22
 19 hd38529b   0.78   14.310 0.129 0.28  54.7  1.39 |  5 46 35.0 |   1  10   7
 20 55cncb     0.84   14.653 0.115 0.02  72.2  1.03 |  8 52 36.1 |  28  19  53
 21 gj86       4.01   15.766 0.11  0.04 375.9  0.86 |  2 10 25.6 | -50  49  28
 22 hd195019   3.57   18.203 0.14  0.02 271.4  1.02 | 20 28 18.6 |  18  46  10
 23 hd6434     0.48   22.090 0.15  0.30  37.0  0.99 |  1  4 40.2 | -39  29  18.0
 24 hd192263   0.75   24.330 0.15  0.03  50.5  0.79 | 20 13 59.9 |   0  52   3
 25 gj876c     0.56   30.120 0.13  0.27  81.0  0.32 | 22 53 16.7 | -14  15  49
 26 rhocrb     1.04   39.845 0.22  0.04  64.2  0.95 | 16  1  2.8 |  33  18  19
 27 55cncc     0.21   44.280 0.24  0.34  13.0  1.03 |  8 52 36.1 |  28  19  53
 28 hd74156b   1.61   51.522 0.28  0.65 112.0  1.05 |  8 42 25.1 |   4  34  43
 29 hd168443b  7.73   58.100 0.295 0.53 472.7  1.01 | 18 20  4.0 |  -9  35  46
 30 gj876b     1.89   61.020 0.21  0.10 210.0  0.32 | 22 53 16.7 | -14  15  49
 31 hd3651     0.20   62.230 0.284 0.63  15.9  0.79 |  0 39 11.8 |  21  15   1
 32 hd121504   0.89   64.600 0.32  0.13  45.0  1.02 | 13 57 17.2 | -56   2  24
 33 hd178911   6.46   71.500 0.326 0.14 343.0  0.90 | 19  9  3.1 |  34  35  59
 34 hd16141    0.23   75.560 0.35  0.21  11.2  1.00 |  2 35 19.9 |  -3  33  38
 35 hd114762  11.03   83.895 0.35  0.34 616.7  0.82 | 13 12 20.1 |  17  31   2
 36 hd80606    3.90  111.810 0.469 0.93 411.0  0.90 |  9 22 37.5 |  50  36  13
 37 70vir      7.44  116.689 0.48  0.40 315.2  1.10 | 13 28 26.0 |  13  46  49
 38 hd216770   0.70  118.000 0.46  0.32  33.0  0.90 | 22 55 53.7 | -26  39  32
 39 hd52265    1.00  119.100 0.49  0.19  38.8  1.13 |  7  0 18.0 |  -5  22   1
 40 hd1237     3.45  133.800 0.505 0.51 164.0  0.96 |  0 16 12.7 | -79  51   4
 41 hd37124b   0.72  153.000 0.54  0.10  28.8  0.91 |  5 37  2.5 |  20  43  50
 42 hd73526    2.98  184.108 0.65  0.44 114.8  1.02 |  8 37 17.0 | -41  19  10
 43 hd104985   6.3   198.200 0.78  0.03   0.0  1.50 | 12  5 15.1 |  76  54  21
 44 hd82943c   0.88  221.600 0.728 0.54  34.0  1.05 |  9 34 50.7 | -12   7  45
 45 hd8574     2.04  228.180 0.77  0.31  64.0  1.10 |  1 25 12.4 |  28  34   2
 46 hd169830   2.94  229.900 0.82  0.35  83.0  1.40 | 18 27 49.5 | -29  49   1
 47 upsandc    1.89  241.500 0.829 0.28  53.9  1.30 |  1 36 48.0 |  41  24  23
 48 hd202206  17.5   256.003 0.83  0.43 564.8  0.90 | 21 14 57.8 | -20  47  21
 49 hd89744    7.99  256.605 0.89  0.67 275.3  1.40 | 10 22 10.7 |  41  13  48
 50 hd134987   1.55  258.499 0.81  0.25  49.3  1.05 | 15 13 28.6 | -25  18  34
 51 hd12661b   2.3   263.000 0.82  0.33  75.0  1.07 |  2  4 34.4 |  25  24  53
 52 hd150706   1.0   264.900 0.82  0.38  33.0  0.98 | 16 31 18.0 |  79  47  23
 53 hd40979    3.32  267.200 0.811 0.23 108.0  1.08 |  6  4 29.9 |  44  15  39
 54 hd17051    1.94  311.288 0.91  0.24  58.8  1.03 |  2 42 33.2 | -50  48   3
 55 hd92788    3.31  327.393 0.95  0.33  98.6  1.07 | 10 42 48.5 |  -2  10  59
 56 hd142      1.07  331.872 0.97  0.37  31.6  1.10 |  0  6 19.0 | -49   4  30
 57 hd28185    5.7   383.000 1.03  0.07 161.0  0.99 |  4 26 26.3 | -10  33   3
 58 hd142415   1.73  388.000 1.07  0.50  52.0  1.03 | 15 57 40.8 | -60  12   1
 59 hd108874   1.78  397.428 1.06  0.14  49.6  1.01 | 12 30 26.8 |  22  52  48
 60 hd4203     1.65  400.944 1.09  0.46  49.3  1.06 |  0 44 41.1 |  20  26  57
 61 hd177830   1.52  408.377 1.14  0.10  37.7  1.17 | 19  5 20.8 |  25  55  15
 62 hd128311   2.58  420.514 1.02  0.30  84.9  0.80 | 14 36  0.4 |   9  44  50
 63 hd27442    1.28  423.841 1.18  0.07  30.7  1.20 |  4 16 28.9 | -59  18   7
 64 hd210277   1.30  434.289 1.12  0.46  39.5  0.99 | 22  9 29.9 |  -7  32  55
 65 hd82943b   1.63  444.600 1.16  0.41  46.0  1.05 |  9 34 50.7 | -12   7  45
 66 hd19994    2.0   454.0   1.3   0.2   45.0  1.35 |  3 12 46.4 |  -1  11  46  
 67 hd20367    1.17  469.500 1.25  0.32  29.0  1.12 |  3 17 40.0 |  31   7  37
 68 hd114783   1.05  494.665 1.19  0.09  28.5  0.92 | 13 12 43.9 |  -2  15  54
 69 hip75458   8.47  510.833 1.28  0.72 299.4  1.05 | 15 24 55.7 |  58  57  58
 70 hd147513   1.0   540.400 1.26  0.52  31.0  0.92 | 16 24  1.0 | -39  11  35
 71 hd222582   5.11  572.000 1.35  0.76 191.3  1.00 | 23 41 51.5 |  -5  59   9
 72 hd65216    1.33  578.000 1.31  0.29  37.0  0.92 |  7 53 41.3 | -63  38  50
 73 hd141937   9.7   653.220 1.52  0.41 234.5  1.00 | 15 52 17.5 | -18  26  10
 74 hd41004A   2.3   655.000 1.31  0.39  74.0  0.70 |  5 59 49.6 | -48  14  23
 75 hd160691   1.87  664.192 1.87  0.26  42.8  1.08 | 17 44  8.0 | -51  50   3
 76 hd23079    2.61  738.459 1.65  0.10  55.3  1.10 |  3 39 43.0 | -52  54  57
 77 16cygb     1.69  798.938 1.67  0.67  51.2  1.01 | 19 41 52.1 |  50  31   5
 78 hd4208     0.80  812.197 1.67  0.05  18.2  0.93 |  0 44 26.6 | -26  30  57
 79 hd114386   0.99  872.000 1.62  0.28  27.0  0.75 | 13 10 40.0 | -35   3  17
 80 hd213240   4.5   951.000 2.03  0.45  91.0  1.22 | 22 31  0.0 | -49  26   0
 81 hd10697    6.12 1077.906 2.13  0.11 114.2  1.10 |  1 44 55.8 |  20   4  58
 82 47umab     2.54 1089.000 2.09  0.06  49.3  1.03 | 10 59 28.2 |  40  25  48
 83 hd190228   3.53 1121.000 2.0   0.50  90.0  1.20 | 20  3  0.8 |  28  18  25
 84 hd114729   0.82 1131.478 2.08  0.31  17.6  0.93 | 13 12 44.3 | -31  52  24
 85 hd111232   7.8  1138.000 2.07  0.25 168.0  0.78 | 12 48 51.8 | -68  25  31
 86 hd2039     4.85 1192.582 2.19  0.68 127.8  0.98 |  0 24 20.0 | -56  39   0
 87 hd136118  12.08 1208.724 2.40  0.36 212.9  1.24 | 15 18 55.5 |  -1  35  33
 88 hd50554    3.92 1249.590 2.32  0.50  81.9  1.06 |  6 54 42.9 |  24  14  45
 89 upsandd    3.75 1284.000 2.53  0.27  61.1  1.30 |  1 36 48.0 |  41  24  23
 90 hd196050   2.73 1316.236 2.43  0.21  48.5  1.10 | 20 37 52.0 | -60  38   3
 91 hd216437   1.98 1331.703 2.43  0.36  37.5  1.07 | 22 54 39.4 | -70   4  25
 92 hd216435   1.49 1442.919 2.7   0.34  24.5  1.25 | 22 53 37.9 | -48  35  53
 93 hd169830c  2.33 1487.000 2.75  0.00  36.0  1.40 | 18 27 49.5 | -29  49   1
 94 hd106252   6.81 1503.610 2.54  0.57 150.4  0.96 | 12 13 29.5 |  10   2  32
 95 hd12661c   1.5  1530.000 2.6   0.20  27.0  1.07 |  2  4 34.4 |  25  24  53
 96 hd23596    8.1  1548.000 2.86  0.30 126.0  1.29 |  3 48  0.0 |  40  31  50
 97 hd37124c   1.3  1595.000 2.5   0.69  32.4  0.91 |  5 37  2.5 |  20  43  50
 98 hd168443c 17.2  1770.000 2.87  0.20 289.0  1.01 | 18 20  4.0 |  -9  35  46
 99 hd145675   4.89 1773.079 2.85  0.38  88.8  1.00 | 16 10 24.3 |  43  49   4
100 hd39091   10.35 2063.818 3.29  0.62 196.9  1.10 |  5 37  9.0 | -80  28   9
101 hd38529c  12.8  2207.400 3.71  0.33 169.1  1.39 |  5 46 35.0 |   1  10   7
102 hd70642    2.0  2231.000 3.3   0.10  32.0  1.00 |  8 21 28.1 | -39  42  19
103 hd33636    9.28 2447.292 3.56  0.53 164.5  0.99 |  5 11 46.0 |   4  24  13
104 47umac     0.76 2594.000 3.73  0.10  11.1  1.03 | 10 59 28.2 |  40  25  48
105 hd190360   1.15 2613.000 3.65  0.00  17.5  0.90 | 20  3 37.0 |  29  53  49
106 hd74156c   8.21 2650.000 3.82  0.35 125.0  1.05 |  8 42 25.1 |   4  34  43
107 hr1084     0.92 2675.000 3.40  0.28  13.7  0.75 |  3 32 56.4 |  -9  27  30
108 hd30177    9.17 2819.654 3.86  0.30 142.2  0.95 |  4 41 54.0 | -58   1  15
109 hd72659    3.0  3537.154 4.5   0.26  42.3  0.95 |  8 34  3.0 |  -1  34   7
110 55cncd     4.05 5360.000 5.9   0.16  49.3  1.03 |  8 52 36.1 |  28  19  53

What M sin i Mjup does mean? see the pictures above under calculation of mass. 
When discovering planets only a minimum mass can be given. If the plane of the 
orbit of the planet is tilted, this mass gets devided by sin(degree of tilt).
See above calculation of mass.

 

 

 

 

 

At last:

 

Formation of our solar system out of a 'disk of dust' or 'swirling nebula':

 

 

Stars as fusion reactors /Deuterium burners:

This is a typical example how astrophysics works today. The theory of stars has as an essential prerequisite that the whole star is in thermodynamic equilibrium: temperature and movement inside the star are in equilibrium with radiation. But this is obviously not the case: at first a star looses energy (else it wouldn't be a star). At second at the surface of a star the radiation field is totally asymetric - a severe contradiction, at third there is no process imaginable nor plausible which could magically ensure this thermodynamic equilibrum and so on and on....

Neutrino problem part I. Neutrino problem part II (actually 3 problems): The neutrino problem solved: Neutrinos with multiple personality.

 

 

Big Bang

If measurements show that 51% percent of stars move away from us and 49% of stars move towards us, one cannot build out of this a theory named "Big Bang". Especialy if there are other researchers who have found contradictous numbers...No wonder if our central star wobbles (and all stars wobble as you can read on these pages!). This whole "Big Bang" shows only that our solar system and the universe is till today not understood! In 2009 /2010!

Perhaps I should explain to non-informed readers (and to some phycisists it seems), that these measurements were made with the exact same method as today the planet findings are made: with spectroscopic displacement measurements ! And this just at the same time I wrote my letter to the physics departements (btw such measurements were already used in 19th century and beginning of the 20th century: in 1912 americain Astronomer Vesto Slipher found a red-shift in certain nebula. The starting point of the BIGBANG.)! This just to the assertion, that you can read by now in scientific1, semi-scientific publications2 and popular magazines3 (look in the net, you find thousands...) that before 1990 the measurement techniques were not that evolved to find planets ! As excusion why before my letters no planets were found !!! Already Joseph von Fraunhofer (1787-1826) did describe the solar spectrum in 1814!!!  So theoretically, since this time these maesurements could have been made!! And practically they were made correctly in 1890 and in 1912 as you can read above as the beginning of the Big Bang. And instead of acknowledging that this whole BigBang-Theory was based on mis-measurements (because they measured without knowing what they did do the wobbling of our central star and of other stars because of havy planets!) there are even today scientists and scientific internet sites which tell about complicated measurement techniques to find the missing energy.

The energy is not missing, nor is it dark, because the whole Bigbang was one single error!!

Big congresses were held till 2005 and even later on the BigBang and the missing energy(or dark energy, how it was called later), here in television or popular magazines you hear even in 2009 every other day some findings about the dark energy, in 2002 (BR-Alpha-Centauri, you find it till today in the net) there was a whole feature about dark energy, you could hear about mysterious dark energy, very, very complicated matter, only comprehensible for the brightest guys.... So it seems there are till today enough Astronomers and Astrophycists out there which haven't understood that the whole BigBang ( ...and with it all the other strange hypothesis that are connected to this ) were simple mis-measurements!

Obviously it is till today not understood what it means that the planets make the stars wobble!!!

 

Finally, since it seems necessary that I describe even this in full detail: any attempt to find with spectroscopic displacement methods planetary systems like ours - with large planets on multi 10-year orbits will fail if astronomers don't learn to take into account the course of our sun around the barycenter of the system jupiter/saturn-sun. This was the second error which led to the false "BigBang" hypothesis and it seems is also till today not understood by astronomers. Every approx. 6 years (1/2 Jupiter orbit time) you get an overlayd "false" shift figure over all your data. 6 years a seemingly red shift, 6 years a seemingly blue shift etc. This means before astronomers haven't learned to subtract these false shifts, they again get completely false figures! (So the actual data on exoplanets should also be taken with a grain of salt.) What simply prooves that without theory you always get false results!

 

 

And very last: From day to day more exoplanet findings prove that everything written on these pages is rather correct. But this in turn means that most mass numbers given today for the exoplanets by astronomers are rather fictitious! This is the simple explanation why NASA thinks they have found a planet made of styrofoam (Kepler-7b).

Its not hard to predict that we will see soon many planets made of styrofoam and even lighter than styrofoam. Perhaps than anybody starts to think over all these wrong theories and hypothesis!

 

Copyright © R.Cooper-Bitsch 2006,2009

Home

1.) "During the past several years the astronomical techniques used for observations have become more and more sophisticated leading to precise indirect methods of detecting planetary bodies orbiting stars other than our Sun."

2.) "Only in the mid 1990's were instruments developed that were sensitive enough to record the telltale signs that indicate the presence of a planet orbiting a star." Exactly 100 years wrong! See here. And more exactly 105 years.

3.)"Advances in spectrometer technology and observational techniques in the 1980s and 1990s produced instruments capable of detecting the first of many new extrasolar planets. 51 Pegasi b, the first extrasolar planet to be detected, was discovered in October 1995 using Doppler spectroscopy."