New facts about planets and stars and the solar orbit

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 18ths century) must get corrected

(short explanation MJup= Jupiter masses e.g. 20Mjup = 20 times the mass of Jupiter)

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)
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 many of 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.
HD 38529c. "Assuming a primary mass M * = 1.48 M sun (..of HD 38529), we obtain a companion mass Mc = 17.6+1.5 –1.2 M Jup, 3σ above a 13 M Jup deuterium burning, brown dwarf lower limit." A contradiction to this theory and to fusion theory.
Most of the found planets have ORBITAL ECCENTRICITIES (some extreme), absolutely incompatible with todays theory on birth of solar systems.
The "dynamical mass for the companion to HD 33636 (..) indicates it is a low-mass star instead of an exoplanet". A contradiction to the "swirling nebula" theory and to fusion theory.
All found planets in the mass range of brown dwarfs (14 to 20 depending on the list you consult) 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....'
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.
Planet Hat P-7b orbits its star even more tildet: 86 degrees from the stars equator.
HD80606b's orbit is not only tilted but at the same time highly excentric (e=0.93).
COROT-Exo-1b... "scientists determined that the celestial body appeared to have a 77 degree tilt in its orbit."
"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...
"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."
"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."
van Winckel, H. et al.: Post-AGB stars with hot circumstellar dust: binarity of the low-amplitude pulsators: "All of the six objects are binaries with orbital periods ranging from 120 to 1800 days. Five systems have non-circular orbits. The mass functions range from 0.004 to 0.57 Mȯ and the companions are probably unevolved objects of (very) low initial mass....The eccentric orbits of these highly evolved objects remain poorly understood."
"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."
Very similar to Wasp-18 : SWEEPS-10. Orbit time of the planet 10 hours.
High eccentricity binary stars are contradictory to this theory, e.g. HD 174884 (with an) "eccentric orbit (e˜0.3), unusual for its short 3.65705° orbital period"
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...
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 M_Jup, respectively. They are about 2.65 AU apart.
Many others which could be in this list, but which are omitted since the data is rather uncertain...
The single-line K-giant binaries β Reticuli and ν Octantis which are 1.4 and half the mass of our sun have a perturbation which can be caused by rotational modulation of surface phenomenon, pulsations or an orbiting body. "The results of (..) analyses lack consistency with both rotational modulation and pulsations and so imply that a planetary mass is a realistic cause. The planet hypothesis, however, is strongly constrained and challenged by our precise binary orbit. The hypothetical planet would have an orbit (e ~ 0.1, a3 ~ 1.2 au) about mid-way between the stars whose periastron distance is only 1.9 au. This orbit, supposedly in resonance with the binary system, appears to be highly unlikely based on current planet formation and orbit-stability expectations." abstract see here.

These are at least 20 (and many more if we would count the duplicate cases!) severe contradictions to the 'disk of dust' or 'swirling nebula' theory. Since this list is gradually more and more difficult to survey the more entries it shows, these cases should suffice for the moment. (Under normal circumstances they should suffice since long to render this theory obsolete...)

For those who are not at home in astronomy: till 1995 our solar system was for centuries the only planetary system known to physics and astronomy. And in our planetary system all planets are very decent and well behaved and arranged. All turn in nearly the same plane and in the same direction. Even the distances follow a (not to strict) arrangement (Bode law), except the 'missing' planet between Mars and Jupiter. All orbits of all planets have very low eccentricities and tilts. Only Uranus shows a very small deviation: Uranus revolves 98 degrees tilted. It behaves like a wheel rolling on its orbit, so to say. But this was no big problem for the 'disk of dust ' or 'swirling nebula' theory. Quite other the planetary systems which were found after the publication of this theory in 1991.

But it seems slowly astronomers start to think over this wrong theory. They find more and more planets which are orbiting in the opposite direction to the rotation of their host star : "The new results really challenge the conventional wisdom that planets should always orbit in the same direction as their stars spin," says Andrew Cameron of the University of St Andrews.

And now(Oct 28 2010) also Berkeley seems to think over this hypothesis: "...the researchers note that their results conflict with current models of planet formation and migration, where it is thought that nascent planets spiral inward towards the sun because of interactions with the gas in the disk. Such models predict a “planet desert” in the inner region of solar systems. But that’s where all the planets are being found."

And: “Just where we see the most planets, models predict we would find no cacti at all,” Marcy said. “These results will transform astronomers’ views of how planets form.”

Now in 2011 more and more resarchers express their doubts: "Large planets very close in orbit around a single star were just totally unexpected," said lead author of the study Jack Lissauer of Nasa's Ames Research Center. And: "I come from a planet formation theory perspective, and this has sent me back to the drawing board,"

The speculations are getting really weird now: "I don't know for sure what's missing from the models, but I have a few guesses," Howard (an astronomer at the University of California at Berkeley) said to space.com "One guess is that the disks of gas that planets are thought to migrate within during the birth of solar systems are more complicated than the models allow for. Another guess is that many small planets in a solar system may undergo a phase of scattering off of each other after the gas clears, a sort-of planetary billiard balls."

And now in June 2011 first evidence by concrete measurements of a different formation of the sun and the planets - at least Earth, Moon, Mars - is found: "We found that the Earth, the Moon, as well as Martian and other meteorites which are samples of asteroids, have a lower concentration of O-16 than the Sun," said McKeegan.

"The implication is that we (..the earth,..) did not form out of the same solar nebula materials that created the sun – just how and why remains to be discovered." Two independent groups of scientists have managed to measure the relative abundances of nitrogen and oxygen isotopes in the solar wind. The studies reveal that the isotopic compositions on Earth are very different from the Sun.

In plain english this means nothing else than the protoplanetary/nebular hypothesis is obsolete.

If further research will confirm these measurements, surely an absolutely sensational fact. Since this is one of the central pillars or even the central pillar of todays astronomy, it is absolutely not to understand that none of the big newspapers or television stations has reported this sensational fact in big headlines. Obviously they want to proove that they are superfluous.

Stars as fusion reactors /Deuterium burners:

The surface of the sun has a much lower average temperature than the corona, 5800 kelvin compared to the corona's temperature of one to three million kelvin. There is absolutely no lucid explanation how a fusion reactor at the center of the sun should heat the corona through a rather cold solar surface. Which now also others see as 'mystery' which needs explanation. See also here and here. See also "The Sun as an X-ray Source". The search experiments for the missing solar neutrinos has reached the third generation. Popular explanation. Also other evidence challenges the assumption that H-fusion is the main source of energy that powers the Sun .

Where the solar fusion theory assumes the biggest forces - at the center of a celestial body - they are in reality zero. Gravitational forces at the center of a celestial body cancel out. Gravitational forces grow if you move inwards a celestial body and decay to zero when you approach the center. This is the reason why we find a solid core at the center of the earth and this is the reason why celestial bodies of very different sizes are possible.

Now if there are additional surface forces added - as in the case of the central body of a planetary system - we have a shining star. This is the whole 'mystery' of stars. The sun rotates faster at the equator than at the poles, a fact for which the fusion energy theory is not able to give a plausible explanation. The here downloadable program calculates the thus produced energy (in a preliminary calculation - if we understand the process fully, much better calculations will be possible) to 1.2 x 10²²Ws to 2.0 x 10²³Ws. The difference to the here on earth measurable 2.6 x 10²⁶Ws to 1 x 10²⁷Ws (3,84 × 10²⁶ med.) may be due to asteroide downfall and other sources of heat (Kelvin, Helmholtz, conversion of gravitational energy to heat) etc. which where considered before the Bethe-Weizsäcker-cycle.

The rest of the story is quickly told: through charge separations there are heavy electrical currents flowing which in turn produce magnetic fields which are finally responsible for the flares and coronal mass ejections of magnetized plasma gas.

Finally this equatorial belt of magma produces swirls which themselves invoke secondary streams which follow similar rules as sea currents on earth, as for example the gulf stream, keeping in this way the whole surface of the sun melted. This is what simulations suggest (results of CFD simulations are never 100% reliable). (Further reading: start here or here, intro here (lect. 1-11) and here.)

Lastly, measurements have shown that there seems to be limited surface fusion on the Sun (deleted in wikipedia. Obviously these are the last convulsions of a theory in the retreat. Seems the author(s) too noted, that the surface of the sun is far too cold for fusion reactions. As soon as this site points/links to such an article, the article disapears, is no more accessible to the public...Not only in wikipedia, also on university servers.). Anyway it should be absolutely clear that this has nothing to do with the solar fusion theory.

These papers (Astronomy & Astrophysics, Jan 2011) are first proves of the calculations and descriptions on this site (see old_eng.htm and old_de.htm): "The barycentric motion of exoplanet host stars: tests of solar spin-orbit coupling" and this pdf: "Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?" Abstract: "We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System.We propose that this synchronization is indicative of a spin–orbit coupling mechanism operating between the Jovian planets and the Sun. However, we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling. Some researchers have proposed that it is the period of the meridional flow in the convective zone of the Sun that controls both the duration and strength of the Solar cycle.We postulate that the overall period of the meridional flow is set by the level of disruption to the flow that is caused by changes in Sun’s equatorial rotation speed. Based on our claim that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun’s meridional flow is set by a Synodic resonance between the flow period (∼22.3 yr), the overall 178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the 19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn."

Read this interview on an Australian ABC science website. To quote from that article: "The authors believe the tiny gravitational tugs of Jupiter and Saturn speed up or slow down the sun's orbital motion about the centre-of-mass, when they are aligned or separated by an angular distance of 90 degrees. They say that when the sun's orbital motion changes, so too does its equatorial rotation rate, which provides strong circumstantial evidence that there is a spin-orbit coupling mechanism operating between Jupiter and Saturn and the sun. The authors propose that this spin-orbit coupling takes the form of a 9:8 resonance, with the 179 year alignment cycle of the Jovian planets being equal to nine alignments of Jupiter and Saturn and eight 22-year Hale cycles. The extent to which Jupiter and Saturn affect the sun's motion may impact on the strength of sunspot activity throughout its solar cycle."

And continue: "There are really only two possible interactions, and neither of them is feasible," Wilson says. "Tidal forces are too tiny. They can only produce a movement of about a millimetre on the surface of the sun.....The alternative, that the sun's motion about the centre of mass should be able to generate internal motion within the sun, violates Einstein's equivalence principle." Read here why this may be no counterargument.

And now in March 2011 mainstream-physics (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) ) is also "just beginning to understand" "that the Sun's plasma rivers speed up and slow down like a malfunctioning conveyor belt". See also here. (Please compare the now 20 year old description in old_eng.htm : "the Sun gets accelerated and slowed down"). But again it seems this description confuses cause and effect and thus gives rather tautologic explanations. But nevertheless they are on the right track now. Here a little help to the remaining questions: "We can't predict how the flow of these plasma rivers will change, (...) Instead, once we see how the flow is changing, we can predict the consequences.": these questions can easily get answerded - since 20 years now - by means of the here downloadable program. And if you don't trust my programing experiences it should be no big challenge to write a similar - and with todays possibilities much more powerfull and comfortable - program which allows studying every minute detail of the process.

Photos of the real sun here ( loading may take some time because of big photos ).

Finally this new evidence will change our view to the sun and the universe in whole completely: "Solar experts (..) say the sun has an iron core". Read more. And this or this may be even more important (even more if you dare to doubt the classification). And again none of the big news agencies reported this news. And in this case even the physics journals mostly stayed remarkably silent what concerns the scientific consequences.

To consider this whole description as absurd because of life time calculations is no physics point of view. In physics you first have to accept the facts. Everything else is the behaviour of a child which crosses a highly frequented road with eyes closed, hoping that it won't get hit this way.

Sunspots

Newest research has shown that sunspots have not the importance as previously thought. Nevertheless exist for sunspots long records of (not too accurate) data. After a very inactive sun the coming years will be interesting. Compare the graph here with the graphs that the here downloadable program produces and the description in old_eng.htm or old_de.htm. Here a prediction of 2010/11/03. (Please be aware that this is no windows program!). News to Sunspots.

Big Bang (NASA page):

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 magazines (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!! A very simple calculation reveals, that distant galaxies are moving much too slow to have reached their present positions since the Big Bang⁽⁴⁾. This alone shows that the most basic considerations are not respected by this hypothesis. Then there is the fact that the big bang requests that dark energy makes up at least seventy percent of the energy mass of the Universe and is ever increasing, this not only hurts one of physics fundamental laws: conservation of energy, a principle that has been verified in so many ways. The explanations given for this by cosmologists are getting more and more weired now and hurting even more fundamental laws of physics. See also here or links below.

There would be much more to say to the big bang. But since this isn't the subject of this site, this shell suffice for the moment.

Sep. 2010: also others see now the BigBang theory as obsolete... see also here. Or this of July 2010 and here. An even older look on the same subject. Another, but caution! This author is considered as dubious! And then a cyclic cosmology (what means there were multiple “big bangs” ! Or no big bang at all?). Which similarly could be heard already in 2008. And "A weakly random Universe?" There is a large discussion on this going on, search for "evidence of time before Big Bang." For instance see links here.

Notorious source of error: not precicely measurable G and here, this as graphical plot ('Unsicherheit von G') (and as one table (table 1) or this table)

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).

It's not hard to predict that we will see soon many planets made of styrofoam and even less massive than styrofoam. Perhaps than anybody starts to think over all these wrong theories and hypotheses! And there is simply no scientific argumentation possible in the case of hypotheses that don't respect primary school math.

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." See the remark under 2).

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. Compare these statements to the links to amateur exoplanet detection sites on doppler.htm. More than twenty exoplanets were found with cheapest amateur backyard telescopes! (http://www.astronomywa.net.au/whats-happening/news/news-archive/63-discoveries/59-amateur-telescopes-find-extrasolar-planet: This is the third transiting planet found using telescopes similar to those used by many amateur astronomers. “Hunting for planets with amateur equipment seemed crazy when we started the project,” says David Charbonneau, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “but with this discovery the approach has become mainstream.” ). And "...in the Santa Ritas, an astronomer has discovered 13 exoplanets orbiting distant stars with the kind of telephoto lenses you would use to snap pictures of a high school football game."

4.) this is elementary school math: "If a driver rides with 50mph how far will he get in 1/2 an hour?"

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

Share this page

You can use one of these Social Network links to share or bookmark this page.