THE SUN MOVES !
In 1991 I wrote a registered mail to
all major german physics departments informing them that
the Sun moves under the combined
gravitational forces of Jupiter and Saturn and that this
is the cause for the energy production in the Sun. The
first part of this statement was accepted with great
pleasure: Astronomers have found in
the years since then till now approx. 100 Suns and
planetary systems like ours out there in the universe
which obey these rules(see for instance here
or here or here with further links.
Survey here. Everyday
new sites emerge. There are by now so many sites that you
can't list them all.).
I always thought that physics is an
exact science. I had to learn that this is not always the
case. That you can take the phenomenological part of a
statement and leave the theoretical proove unconsidered,
unheard. So I repeat my letter here for the broad public.
Perhaps the broad public understands better than the
physics world what I am trying to say. If it is so,
please tell every physicist that you meet: the Sun moves!
No, let's be serious. You can simulate
our solar system in computers with Newton's gravity law.
Many programs are by now out there which do this. (There
are two ways to do this which should not get intermixed:
by constructing elliptical courses or by simulating our
solar system with Newton's law in a 3-d space. It should
be clear that the elliptical courses are only
approximations of the real courses, because they can't
reflect the interdependencies between the planets).
Now if you write a program which
implements Newton's law, you get the exact courses of our
planets - but thats not what I was interested in. You get
something else, something what physics ten years ago
stated as impossible and nonsense: you get a movement of
the Sun. Well understood: we don't talk of the movement
of our solar system around the center of the milky way!
We talk of an additional movement, not a big movement,
but a movement. The Sun moves by the combined forces of
all outer planets - but mainly Jupiter and Suturn - on a
hypercycloid orbit around the center of gravity of our
solar system.Enormous centrifugal and centripetal forces on
the sun are the consequences.
And this movement isn't uniform - the
Sun gets accelerated and slowed down on this orbit, the
whole movement is a non-steady movement, with a cycle
time of the wighted overlayd orbit times of Jupiter and
Saturn. Although this whole movement of the Sun is very
small, it has - considered the enormous mass of the Sun -
an enormous energy production as result. Since this seems
to be so hard to understand for the physicist, lets view
it graphically:
But it seems physicists don't see the
non-steady motion in this picture, so let us remove the
movement around the barycentric location of our solar
system out of this picture. We get a ordinary cycloid
movement(Bronstein-Semendjajew page 88ff), with an
average period composed of the overlayd orbit times of
Jupiter and Saturn (which resembles a 22 year period. Do
the 22 years remember you on anything? a hint, think on
spots):
The sun moves with an
average speed of 13 m/sec on a cycloid course
Still not clear enough ? So let's view
how this movement is produced.(Only Jupiter shown, whole
picture is not true scale!)
(Only
for demonstration purposes! The true movement of the central body is
inverse, see above)
This cycloid alternates between normal
and prolonged cycles. Depending on the position of the
outer planets normal cycles but also prolonged cycles can
follow directly each other.
The maximum is a direct function of the
positions of Jupiter and Saturn to each other.
If you take into account the relative
masses(Einstein) the whole picture doesn't change.
I voluntarily have omitted to calculate
the whole orbit exactly (it is around 2-3 Sun diameters),
because if this theory is right, all measurements made
till now have to be corrected - at least in the
precission range we are talking about here.
These are the consequences out of the
non-steady movement of the Sun:
- The solar spots get an immediate
explanation. The known 11,1 cycle ( which is in
reality a 11,8 - 11,8 - 29,46 cycle) is a direct
outcome of the enormous acceleration considered
the mass of the Sun. By the way: the stated 11
year cycle of the solar spots is mainly due to
data of the 19.th century and the observations of
one single person, who hasn't done his
observations professionaly, no, it was his
hobby-occupation!
- The sun rotates. According to
conventional theory there's absolutely no lucid
explanation for this. Quite contrary, e.g. a
first impuls from the beginning of our solar
system should have stopped since long.
- The Sun rotates faster at the
equator than at the poles: considered the above
motion nothing else can be espected. You can try
it yourself: take a glass of water and move it as
shown above.
- It was undisputed and the holy
truth that Mercury couldn't rotate because of the
enormous gravitational forces of the Sun - till
radar measurements prooved the contrary.
According to conventional theory Mercury
shouldn't rotate: the enormous gravitational
force of the Sun should have stopped all
rotational energy(eg of a first impulse). But
Mercury rotates.
- Till today the orbital
disturbancies of Mercury can not fully get
explained - despite Einstein. If we consider the
movement of the Sun, we get the explanation.
- Despite all the efforts in the
last decades, the measured Neutrino-Radiation is
by far not in the expected range. Instead of
accepting that the Sun isn't the nuclear fusion
reactor stated in todays physics, now even
Neutrinos got to have a mass! What next are you
going to sacrifice ?
- Despite all efforts in the last
decades, phycisists were not able to proove the
existance of sustained - energy producing -
atomic fusion. The millisecond fusion achieved in
the beginning 90ths were produced with an
enormeous input of power. Sustained fusion never
happened. The ultrasonic experiments today still
need proof. If the whole process of energy
production in the Sun is a mechanical process -
like blazing brakes - this is the explanation
why. Phycisists must go back to their desk and
think their theory all over.
- If the sun is the stated atomic
fusion reactor it must be an incrediblly nice
fusion reactor: nearly none of its absolutely
deadly radiation comes to the outside.
Measurements of atomic radiation from the
universe show that there is atomic radiation: but
the big radiation is not coming from the sun, but
from very distant galaxies. Perhaps NASA will
become the most reliable - but un-wilful- witness
for the theory here: if the sun would be the
stated atomic fusion reactor, how could they have
send missions to the moon? The thin aluminium
skin of Appollo was absolutely no shelter against
atomic radiation, the same is true for the space
suits. And how could we send satelites in the
direct neighborhood of the sun which serve as
observers of the sun? Electronic circuits are
havily degraded in the presence of radiation - up
to final failure.
Now nearly all "big
questions" or "unsolved problems" of
today's astrophysics find an astonishing simple answer:
- The missing masses - the biggest
problem of todays astrophysics - are no more
missing: they are there, right in front of your
eyes. But other than in conventional theory, big
'stars' now not any longer automatically have to
shine. They are simply 'dark stars'.
- The much too low neutrino
radiation is answered.
- The different hubble-constants
depending on orientation become an answer
- The contradictous measurements
what concerns enlargement or reduction of the
universe is answered
- Even the red-blue shift is partly
due to this course of the Sun and the wobbling
stars - as I stated in my first letter and as now
phycisists begin to realize (we are traveling
with the Sun on this orbit!)
- there are much much more facts -
which I can't express due to my limited english
knowledge. They would come over too much
simplified, so that no one is served with such
facts. I hope you have enough hints now to find
out by yourself the answer to the rest of the
"big unsolved problems" of todays astro
physics. You find these in every good book on
astro physics.
|
How could this happen ? Don't
ask me. One possible answer is that when Newton
formulated his gravity-theory the exact value of the
gravity-constant was unknown. It was late in the 18th
century, seventyone years after Newton's death, in 1798,
when Henry Cavendish found the exact value of that
constant. It seems that by this time it was already as it
is today: it was impossible to question what the great
Newton said - although he never did say that the Sun was
fixed in the sky and that it is immune against the forces
of gravity. Although he knew the importance of gravity on
the tides on earth and did mention it expressis verbis,
he could by no means predict such effects on the Sun,
because he didn't knew the exact value of the
gravity-constant. So it became a sacrilege to question
what generations of holy ancestor physicist have told
their successors : the Sun is eternally fixed and by no
means affected by such earthly things as gravity. What
complicated the whole thing as an unsurmountable task was
the n-body problem: it states (slightly simplified) that
you can't calculate our solar system, because every
movement of every planet has consequences on the movement
of the planet you want to calculate. Generations of
mathematical genius'ses have tried to solve the problem
and failed utterly. Even at the same time when I wrote my
letter to the physics departments there was a french
scientist which published a research which stated exactly
this. But today problems like this are quite normal in
every engeneering discipline: you simply let the computer
try out every possibilty and if your program proves to
provide stable results - results that produce always the
same outcome no matter what starting conditions you
choose - you know, your results are valid.
Nevertheless, around 1900 physical
measurements became that exact that it became obvious
that something must be wrong with the whole thing.
Mercury had obvious orbital disturbances which were
absolutely not in accordance with any theory. But then
came Einstein and everything seemed ok again. Today it
seems forgotten that this was the reason why Einstein
formulated his relativity theory. Later - around 1930 -
when the question came up what sort of process it is that
heats the Sun, the answer was easy: it had to be the just
found atomic energy. No other source of energy could be
that mighty! And this although atomic energy was just
theoretically found, no practical experience existed at
that time.
What's more, physics was in a pinch:
Since geologists had proven that earth must be around 4-5
billion years old, no other energy could last that long.
And now they made the biggest mistake: Since this life
time could only get achieved if the whole celestial
mechanics would function frictionless, they stated
against every obvious facts that the movement of the
planets is frictionless! (today you can find no more
books that state this, but if you read between the lines,
you can still hear the echoes. When I studied there was a
book named "celestial mechanics" which stated
exactly this) Every child can tell it better: The tides
are enormous forces considered the whole earth. (And as
we know today, also the earth-crust is lifted (and
released again) by gravitational forces of the moon!) And
this energy does not come out of "nothingness"!
Big sins have big consequences: Nearly everything you can
read in astrophysics books today is influenced by this
false thinking and produces accordingly strange theories
( one of them beeing the birth of our solar system out of
a disk of dust!).
So again don't ask me! If this whole thing is true, there
will come a lot of wise man and will explain it all in
big books and tell fairytails as the physicists tell now
of gruel black holes, white dwarfs and red giants and
fusion energy that could save men.
Certainly true is that the Sun is not the center of
gravity of our solar system, nor lays the center of
gravity in the Sun, nor is the Sun fixed at the center of
gravity as we are told in school and University. As soon
as you only take Jupiter and Saturn, the Sun begins to
move around the center of gravity. Not much in absolute
numbers(2-3 sun diameters), but enough to have mighty
effects considered the weight of the Sun with 1.99 *
10^30kg. Now if the centrifugal forces which are acting
upon the sun are not enough, consider the non srteady
motion. . As you can clearly see in the oscillogram that
is written on top of the screen of the program, the
velocity of the Sun changes in accordance with the motion
of Jupiter and Saturn. Its the learner driver problem: he
accelerates and then he slows down, he accelerates and
slows down. So if he has got anything movable in his car,
all his baggage will come to the front if he slows down
and go back to the rear if he accelerates again. To my
physics understanding at least. And now if you do
something like this with a giant like the Sun, imagine
what power there is! Blazing brakes are nothing compared
to this! There's even a better example to explain the
whole thing: imagine a real big supertanker. Now imagine
two heavy towboats, one with an engine of 0.5 mio ps and
one with 1.8 mio ps. The two captains are real bad guys.
They try to provoke the captain of the supertanker. First
both of them pull in front of the tanker, then, after it
is just getting under way, the captain with the heavier
towboat is changing to the stern of the tanker and pulls
there with all his might. Heaving done this for a while,
he changes back to the front and so forth. Now imagine
what would happen with the tanker if there were no
bulkheads. !? (by the way: it doesn't matter in this case
if we are in zero gravity of the universe or on earth.)
Now finally replace the oil by sand and stones and
enlarge the whole picture some billion billion times and
you arrive at a rather true portrayal of reality.
So far my explanation of the whole thing. I could say
some more, but let the physicists do their homework, no?
Let me only say one thing: the atomic fusion-theory is
only a small piece which is affected, but if the main
statement of this writing is true, a whole part of the
physics building must get reconstructed.
Just one sentence: The picture that
physics renders is much too static. There are many facts
in many sciences that proof this statement. I will
publish them by and by.
|
Background The
first time I came across the problem of our solar system
was
in school. I could'nt believe that such heavy masses as
Jupiter
and Saturn would let rest the Sun in peace, since even
with
school physics you can prove that the Sun moves. My
teacher told
me that the Sun is not affected by such earthly thoughts
and this
was it.
The next time I met the problem, I was well prepared. It
was in
the first or second semester on physics in University. I
was
really good prepared, having calculated four or five
sheets of
paper, which should prove, to my opinion that the Sun
mooves
under the influence of Jupiter and Saturn(and not rests
steadily
and in heavenly peace in the barycentric location of our
planetary
system as physics stated), and especially that
the center of gravity of our solar system does not lay
inside the
Sun as conventually stated, but a small distance outside
the Sun.
A very small distance, but exactly not in the Sun.
My professor was a nice guy - I dont remember his name,
something
like Welper or Weber I think - he did spend the whole
afternoon with me
on the blackboard to end the session lately professionaly
by stating,
this is a N-body (multiple masses) problem, which is not
solvable. And by the way, Einsteins room-time-continuum
... At
that time, the hand-calculators where just emerging, much
too
expensive for a poor student and so my Prof could easily
beat me
with his last question: if your theory would be right
then let's
calculate the energy balance of our solar system: If we
follow
your theory we get a life time of the whole
system of 1 million years: you see that can never be! At
that time
I was not prepared for that question. Today I know that
it easily
can be. So I gave up. It's always the same with
physicists: If you
want to prove something like this, they want you to
explain them
the whole world and the Universe too, although they can't
even explain
something simple like gravity.
Much later as I got my first 386sx on a pale afternoon
when I had
nothing to do, and especially nothing to do for that
"supermachine" that it surely was at its time,
I thought of a
problem that would occupy that big machine for a while.I
remembered the
multiple-masses-problem. Two hours later, I had the
programm,
even in colors, they were great these new Vga's! But I
had a
problem: I couldnt hinder the Sun moving around the
barycentric
location of our solar system. And if your getting in
physics the outcome
you want, experience tells: be cautious! After suspecting
the compiler(zortech2, later zortech3), the computer, me,
I suspected
my code. I wrote the whole thing again, this time not in
spherical
coordinates but from the beginning in xyz-coordinates and
wrote a
little frontend to convert those spherical coordinates
that you
get in the astronomical books to xyz-coordinates.
The same thing happened. It did wander. Even on a
brandnew 486dx
with reduced timeunits per computation. It was as always:
the
little programm became hard work. I implemented a
zoom-function
with which you can zoom out and zoom in. But if your
zoomed out,
you can see the outer planets take their turns, but see
nothing
of the Sun's motion, if your zoomed in you see the Sun
move, but
not why. So i implemented ...
Shortly, after having inspected my algorithm ten
times(more, much
more..), my data changed a hundred times, suspected the
books
from which I got the data(they tend to differ a lot), it
was
clear: the Sun moves. If you let it rotate around the
center of
gravity it forms a rosette. If you want to have the
picture more
clear to see the influence of Jupiter and Saturn
especially
and the contribution that is accomplished by uranus and
neptun
you can let it float. This is especially usefull to study
the
starting conditions.(remember the unsolvable N-body(
multiple-
masses-) problem). Yes - this is the crux of the whole
thing. You
can't tell where and when to start. You got to start
sometime and
somewhere. This is presumably or even for sure not the
place
where the Sun is at the choosen moment! If you start with
the Sun
at 0,0,0 the Sun maybe at that place at that time, but
chances
are it's not. Nobody can tell. You can start the Sun at
any
place around her circle around the center of gravity, all
are
equally conceivable.
Lukily, this makes no great difference, especially for
the task
the program is written for : to show the Sun's motion and
the
dependency of the Sun-spots on that motion. If you're
interested
try it out yourself: Use any number of different starting
locations. You
will see soon the picture stabilzes to always the same
outcome. By
the way- with much investigation, the program could be
synchronized
to the real motion of the Sun. More to this point later.
Part II
Now comes the second part. You can imagine how I was
electrisized
as it became clear that it was not the fault of my
program, nor
my computer, nor me that the Sun moved, but this program
was a
real portrayal of reality. I called a friend, who had
just
finished his doctor in Physics and sat him in front of
the
monitor. He understood at the moment what he saw and only
said,
"for sure thats it." Five hours later he called
me in the
night, he had written the same program on his Atari and
received
the same result. Allthough he did use only 2 dimensions,
a simplification
which should be avoided. I haven't given him any details
of my program,
so that we wouldn't do the same mistake unintentionally.
So I wrote a letter to the major german (astro-)physics
headquarters. It was dated the 11.11.91, the day in
Germany the
fools-session begins. Actually I was pressed, since one
of the guys I had
talken to urged me with questions, whom I already talked
to and
things like that, it seemed he would like to earn some
undeserved
merrits( he is now working at our leading solar institute
here in
Germany. Strange coincidence, isn't it?) So for sure in
the hury I
made some minor mistakes in my writing.
The best thing about all were the answers I received.
Most of
them remaind silent(those who think this is the best
tactic if
the world around you is smashing into pieces), some of
them made
a real fool of themself, these letters would lean
themself as
cause of dismissal, some simply expressed their
discontent: "What
the hell you think you are (to disturb my heavenly
peace!)" and
worse abusing, some tried to explain to me that the world
and god is not
that cruel.
But the head of the headquarters of german astro-physics,
the
Max-Plank-Institut answered like Salomon: maybe you're
right what
concerns the course of the Sun, but that does'nt matter.
And
they send me their publication for the amateur-
astronomer(Sterne
und Weltraum 5/88) with an article that stated exactly
what I
had told my physics Prof 20 years ago at the blackboard
(see above)
and what today every pupil can calculate on his hand-held
calculator:
that the Sun moves(but they also stated that this
movement has no consequences
whatsoever). I only thought to myself: Oha that's the way
science works!
In case there is some truth in it, we publish a little
back-assurance!
So you can always tell later: "Hey, see here, we
knew it all the time,
we only did'nt want to make such a big fuzz out of
it!"
When I studied, it was undisputed and the holy truth that
the
Sun doesn't move and stands rock-steady on its place,
fixed for
eternity.(there are enough phycisists out there who try
to tell
you this today, I met a lot of them recently, doctors,
professors, doctordoctors doctordoctor-professors etc.).
Perhaps
in forty years we will read (again in a publication for
the
amateur-astronomer ?) an article that maybe the motion of
the Sun
even has an effect, rumor has it....
Not a single word to my statement that my program prooves
that
the Sun moves unsteady, is accelerated und slowed down,
that the
solar-spots are directly related to this acceleration and
slow
down, and that the cause of the energy production in the
Sun stems from this
fact. If there is solar fusion energy - and there is
probably -
its induced fusion, not self sustained fusion.
Its like all experiments have shown: If you push hard
enough, you
get atomic fusion, but no self-sustained fusion. Thats
why the
enormous energy they pumped into the experiments have
brought
only fusion for some milliseconds.
Anyway: conventional theory states that the process that
heats the sun
is formed of two parts: gravitational forces push towards
the center of
the sun while (very much simplified) the atomic fusion
reactor inside the
sun pushes material outwards. This is a very fragile
equilibrium which always
must be guaranteed, else the star (the Sun) would explode
or would implode.
The problem now is that my calculations - by computer or
by hand - proved
always that our sun is such a special case, where this
equilibrium is guarateed -
but there are thousands of millions of billions of other
stars in the universe that have
other masses! Should they all be special cases? So let me
ask you: Is this whole
theory one single special case? And if I have gotten
something
totally wrong and misunderstand that whole thing
completely, why
isn't there a program which
calculates that equlibrium
once and for all stars out there?
So after all: I didn't publish this program because I
thougth the
physicists comunity will clear that problem internally.
This seems
partly to be done. The last big "huray !" of
the atomic-fusion-
lobby was in dezember 1991 or 1992, if my memory serves
me well.
The headlines in all magazines were :"Breakthrough
!" They had
sustained fusion for some milliseconds. It seems that
they later
received a copy of my letter. Since then it has been
remarkebly
quiet out there on the fusion front. But it seems that
someone
forgot to inform the french and japanese researchers : in
France
and Japon they are still spending millions of dollars in
senseless doings. Or should they be such havy believers
in solar
fusion energy that they are not interested in what
reality says ?
Why do I now publish this program? Because history
seems to
repeat itself. Its so evident that this program is a real
simulation of our solar system. Why do phycisists still
maintain the
fairytail of self-sustained fusion ? Just now there is a
big feature in german
television which repeats all the fairytails of the past,
of solar
energy generation by self induced fusion. Some lately
published
books report the same.
The program (this
was written 91/93, so last century means 19th century)
The program simulates our solar system in a
xyz-coordinate system
by calculating the newtonian gravitational forces. The
center of gravity
( the barycentric location) is at 0.0.0. The bodies are
thought to be point masses, which can be done even in the
case of
the Sun if we consider only the outer planets. (there are
many
books out there which state that nearly 100% of the mass
of the
Sun is concentrated in a small kernel in the midst of the
Sun -
essential for the fusion theory.)
Relativistic corrections (Einstein) get calculated and
modify
the newtonian forces slightly. Since this slows down the
program
considerably, this feature can be switched off. In any
case this
affects only the inner planets and it is first tested for
high
enough speed to be applicable(again in the sense of high
speed of
the program.
The barycentric location stays at the origin of the
coordinate
system. In this case the course of the Sun forms a
rosette, if you
eliminate that fixation you get the above described
cycloide.
What concerns the main statement, this makes no
difference.
The velocity of the Sun is measured and plotted in a
oscillogram
at top of the picture. This reflects perfectly the
records of
scientists of the solar spots - at least in this century.
In the
last century there is missing the spot of 1896 and before
1850
the data seems to be very unreliable. This is easy to
explain,
because not all reversals of speed (eg slow ones) must
bring
visible (at least on earth) spots with them, and by the
way :
science in the last century was not what it is today, it
was more
or less a telling of tales what concerns astronomy.
The data before 1850 seems to be due to one sole man, a
amateur-
astronomer named Schwabe, who at the same time had to
care for his second
hobby, botany. Perhaps, in some seasons his second hobby
was
more important to him than astronomy. And even if he was
an
industrious collector of data: do you know how bad the
weather in
Germany can be: there have been summers I remember with
ten days
of bright sunshine. Let them even be 30 days. What, if on
exactly
these days the spots where on the back of the Sun ? And
what
about autumn/winter ? There are always clouds on the sky
! So how
the data of one sole man in a country in which you don't
see the
Sun for months can be taken serious ? What sort of
science
is this ? Is this science ? This data only became so
prominent
because the nestor of german nature science, Humboldt,
reported
Schwabe's data in his book. He was in need of data and so
the
observations of one sole man became eternal truths in
astronomy.
Unconceivable today (??)! Remember: this so-said 11-year
period
is one of the essentials of modern astro-phisics. By the
way: the
same thing as said about Schwabe holds true for the whole
last
century. Although in the midst of the last century more
and more
people became interested in the solar spots, most of the
data
came from Great-Britain and Germany, both mostly clouded
regions.
(this was written in 1993, so the 19th century is meant!)
And generally speaking: how are Sun-spots measured? Is it
only
the numbers which count, or is it perhaps also the extend
which
counts? What about very small spots ? Nearly invisible? A
lot of
them?
The 11-year cycle seems to be thus rather fictiv. But
what the program
shows, is that the observed 9 and 13-year cycle are
rather true
(which together form the often stated 22-year cycle).
They are
created by the superimposition of the gravitational
forces of
Jupiter and Saturn. You can fade in the numerical values
of the
reversals of speed in the motion of the Sun into the
oscillogram
by pressing the letter f on the keyboard. As you may
notice, the
small reversals of acceleration, which form an S in the
descending or
ascending part of the curve seem to be unobservable from
earth.
Only the peaks and zero-crossings are impressively in
accordance.
By the way: since the nature of the solar spots is not
totally
clear - they seem to be rather cold regions in the hot
magma -
they should only be used as indicators that something
heavy is
going on in the Sun, a revolution of matter as it seems.
Therefore it may be questionable if the number of spots
can be
taken as the measure of activity, the extend is at least
of
same importance. Perhaps even better would be a
generalized
measurement of the flares (or the plasma).
|
The proof: The proof is right down below our feets: the
earth is a litle Sun! A very cold sun, but a sun. There
is no difference between suns and planets, as
conventional physics states. Although the exact process
of energy generation in the earth is quite different, the
principle stays the same. Earth's rotation under the moon
and Moon's rotation around the earth is no lossless
process as every child can tell: the tides are too
obvious. But the moon acts with the same forces on the
land masses: they also are lifted and released by the
gravitational forces of the moon. This is today no more
disputed: it is measurable by earthbound measuring
devices as well as by satellites. To give you a number:
in Europe the earth is lifted 30 cm in height by the
gravitational forces of the moon(Northsea 70 cm). But
again, according to conventional physics, this has no
effect whatsoever!?!
I hope you get the picture right, these
are gigantic forces: according to the law actio=reactio
these are the forces that keep the moon on its orbit!
Although the crust is lifted only 30 centimeters these
are gigantic forces. Now nobody can tell you how exactly
the gravitational forces of the moon act on the earth:
gravity - although known since Newton - is the last white
spot on the physics landscape of the known forces(see
below). It is such that in the case earth-moon only the
outer crust of the earth is lifted and released - on both
sides of the earth. This keeps in a rather complicated
process the matter between earths kernel and the crust
melted. This is the cause for earth's vulcanism and this
is the cause for the drift of the continents and this is
the cause for earthquakes.
So finally you can see, the most advanced science today
seems to be the last resort of alchemism! By separating
Suns and planets in two oposing groups they do exactly
what alchemism was all about!
|
To the
program:
The program was not ment to see the public. It
was only ment for my own purposes. Its therefor
in no way bug-free or easy to handle. It even has
no GUI. Since it has no need for a mouse, there
simply is no mouse. Its a good old dos
keyboard-program. Its bug-free to that extent
that the essential inner-workings are testet
again and again. I have severable self-tests
included to be sure that the program works
correctly, for instance are the times measured a
planet takes for one course. If this time is
correct to 1% or 2% you can assume that the
program is working correctly and your data is ok.
More accuracy is not to expect: if the main
statement of this writing is true, all data must
be considered as unreliable in the per mille
range, because obviously we are moving with the
Sun on its course through the universe. Other
selftests include the (continous) measurement of
the radius of all planet-courses. Oh yes- I made
a simplification - not in the program but in the
data I use: the data that comes with the program
does not take into accout the excentricity of the
courses of the planets but takes the mean value,
because at first this excentricity is very small
and second, the real reason, you can not any
longer measure the radius(without slowing down
the program unacceptaly). By now I measure the
radius only in the positive x-direction when y
comes to a minimum. If you now look for the
greatest x you probably got the radius.(the small
z part is neglected) On the other side, if you
let the planets do their excentric courses, you
cannot tell at which part of the course the
biggest (or smallest) elongation will happen. So
you got to measure all the time and not only x or
y, but xyz, and this takes time with all the fabs
and pow and comparissions... (oh yes- if the
world would be made of integers how boring would
it be !) So now, if your unsatisfied with my
data, take your own ! But dont be surprised if
the radius no more is true ! (By the way- this
changes nothing on the behaviour of the Sun -the
main statement remains true.) So if this are'nt
enough selftests for you, you can even send some
moons on their way - provided your data is good
enough what in the case of earths moon is surely
true and you dont set the speed of the program to
high. Else there are to little computations per
time-unit and your moon will get lost in
universe. And be prepared to wait, the more
planets,moons.. you introduce, the more time to
compute, quite clear. The program accepts a data
file in which the momentary positions of all
planets are described in xyz-coordinates, also
the velocity in their respective share in
xyz-direction. Since it may be that you have
other data on the masses of the planets or the
Sun, you can also change these. You can insert
the starting point for the whole simulation in
normal date/time format. Internally the program
counts in siderical time-units, which means one
day = 23h 56m 4s.091. You can change this to mean
Sun-time(24h3m56s,555) within the program. If you
think you can tell the amount of mass the Sun
looses in the process of energy-generation, you
can also insert this. (Don't forget that the Sun
also gains matter - and energy! - by comets,
meteors, asteroids..) Normally this field is set
to zero, because without a prooven theory of the
energy-production within the Sun this is pure
speculation (and this is not the subject of
physics, as we all know, allthough if you look
into books about astrophysics ...). On the other
hand, there are lots of data out there won out of
the year-circles in trees, the ice of the polar
regions, the deposit of sand of the oceans and
the growth of corals which could perhaps be
synchronized or correlized to the loss of mass of
the Sun. As I mentioned above it is wise to limit
the number of planets in your simulation. If you
own a 386sx without a copro (I don't remember if
it functions without a copro) eliminate
everything below Jupiter (they have so little
masses that this doesn't change the simulation.)
and be prepared to wait ! You can accomplish this
by inserting in the first place where normally
stands 'plt' a 'not'. In this case this planet is
not taken into account. If you own a fast 486,
say with 133mhz, you can allow all planets. With
a 586 or even 686, no question ! Oh, by the way.
The program is old. It is really old. It was
written in 1990/1991 with zortech c++ ver
2.1/3.0. ( I never changed it, because I think it
is a document). Although this was a good compiler
with fantastic accuracy, maybe with newer
machines, but at least with newer graphic-cards
there can arise some difficulties, because the
latest (newest) graphic-card by that time was
ET-4000. So if you get nothing on your sceen with
your state-of-the-art PCI-card , I'm sorry. I'm
sure if you're eager to see what the program
shows you will find some old-fashion graphic-card
below your workbench. One thing you can try in
this case is to set the environment variable
FG_DISPLAY=VGA12. In this case the program
doesn't try to switch to 800x600, but stays in
640x480. If your card hasn't build-in vesa
compatability, maybe it helps to load a
vesa-driver such as univbe. I think vesa was
already known at that time, at least the
low-resolution variants we need here.The program
has two screens. One shows our solar system in
normal scale, which means, the Sun is a very
small point if you want to see all planets on the
screen. I hope you dont expect to see a picture
of the sun here, there are lots of 'planetarium
programs' out there in the net. Fetch one. I
ommited pluto intentionaly in the data file
because it really attributes nothing to the
motion of the Sun, at least not in the accuracy
we are talking about here. There is a switch with
which you can change the scale of the picture: m
followed by + or +'s will enlarge the scale, m
followed by - or -'s will reduce the scale.(m
stands for maástab- the german word for scale.)
Nevertheless this is unsatisfactory because while
you see the outer planets which cause the motion
of the Sun, you don't see the Sun and if you
enlarge the picture so you can see the motion of
the Sun, you no more see the outer planets. So
there is a second screen, which you can reach by
typing 'mk' on the keybord. This changes the
scale of the Sun's course to be enlarged, while
the scale of the course of the outer planets is
reduced. The inner planets are suppressed in this
picture( although they come into sight if you
rotate the whole picture into the z-axis. Then
they will show a very broad course, because they
follow the Sun on their course.) In this screen
the other 'm'-(scale-)functions are unreachable.
( Also the n-function which re-standardizes the
whole simulation. By the way, don't use this
function, else you know what your doing. There
are some other switches which are not documented
in the help-screen. Use them at your own risk.)
In the mk-screen the course of the planets is
shown in comet-form which means you see the point
where the planet is plus a tail. This is only to
see always the location of the planet, a mere
point would be nearly invisible in 800x600
resolution. The tail gets longer if you change
the speed of the simulation with the g+ switch.
With the g+ switch the velocity of the planets
stays unchanged, only the number of calculations
per timeunit is reduced. Originally this is set
to one calculation per hour(hour in simulation,
not real hour). So if you enhance this and
Mercury goes wild or a moon gets lost in
universe, its not because the velocity of one of
these has changed, but because there were too
little computations per timeunit to keep them on
there course. So if you use this switch on a slow
computer - remove the inner planets and don't
dare to imagine moons on there course. On the
contrary -if you doubt the whole program and
think the motion of the Sun is only due to the
inaccuracy of the program, slow down the
simulation with g-'s to one computation per
second or even further, but be prepared to
wait.....(even on a 586 and more on a 686,
because this program is 16-bit). Other useful
switches are s to shift colors, if the planet you
want to observe has the wrong colour to your
oppinion, is to dark, or.. Another useful
application for this switch is to change the
color of the planets if you want to see their
momentary location on the first screen, or to see
the momentary location of the Sun on the
second-(mk-)screen. The a-switch fades in the
relativ year of acceleration-reversal of the Sun
into the oscillogram of the solar velocity on top
of the picture described as solar spot activity.
This number is only shown as an integer, to
confuse the picture not too much. If you want to
see it in floating-point-representation, which is
much more meaningful, the same number is shown at
the bottom of the screen in the right-most
corner. The c-switch periodically clears the
screen. This is as most other switches a
toggle-switch. Toggle it one time and the picture
gets periodically cleared, toggle it two times
and you get the old condition.With the b-switch
you can -as allready stated- switch in and out
the calculation of the relative mass due to
Einsteins law. Because this is time-consuming and
slowing down the program, it is only done where
its appropriate - at high speeds. This is
arbitrarily set to 30000 m/s.(A small point
behind the measured radius indicates the planet
to which this is applicable, normally the
3-innermost, although with Venus and the Earth
the contribution is almost neglegible.) It
changes nothing on the statement of the program -
as you can easily see.The switches i and j change
the appearance of the 10-year-marker in the
oscillogram of the solar velocity.With the
w-switch the momentary locations of all planets
and the Sun are written to a file. This can later
again be used as input to the program. (please
take into account, this was written around 93/96)Always start program with -sm switch,
since there is no more
need to test the FPU today!
|
|
Consequences The movement of
the sun seems
no more to be disputed among astro-physicists:
astronomers of different countries have found since 1994
more than 100 planetary systems out there in the universe
in which the central star obeys the described rules. The
only thing that needs further acceptance now is the fact
that this is the cause of energy production in the sun.
The consequences are that enormous and concerning all
sciences that even if you would try to specify them, you
couldn't. At first astrophysics: you can give nearly
everything thought and stated in the last century into
the rubbish bin. There simply are no red giants, no white
dwarfs, no exploding super-novae(but there are collisions
of stars) etc etc. All creatures out of phycisist fairy
tales! But physics in whole is concerned, from the great
unified theories to neutrinos to ....
Geological sciences are mainly concerned next. But in
reality all sciences are concerned, because many till now
rock-steady thruths get ruptures. There are so many
consequences on all sciences, but I keep them for now. I
will publish by and by some more consequences out of this
theory.For now I would be happy if the world accepts
this.
Obvious should be the consequences for space
technologie: So in my first letter, I stated a little bit
shy that this is true despite the fact that we send
satellites to the moon. Now that it seems that physics at
least has accepted that there is a solar orbit, this
statement is superflous. So please, will anybody tell
NASA too whats going on? So that they find next time
Mars?
|
Fool on the
hill
My friends keep asking me: If you found
something earth shaking like this, why haven't
you got the Nobel-price? My answer is: you don't
get Nobel-prices for something ridicoulous like
this, for first or second semester physics, for
the childish finding of 140 planet-systems like
ours (while physics has searched for more than a
century for planet-systems like ours and couldn't
find any!). You get Nobel-prices for good
eyesight, for looking through microscopes or
telescopes - than even stars are named after you,
you get Nobel-prices for beiing at the right time
at the right place- in big companies and
University institutes with many apparati,
instruments and a whole lot of assistents that
work out data for you, but not for finding out
something ridicoulous like this in your private
study chamber. And in any case - when I asked our
leading german institute - the Max-plank
Institute for Astro-Physics to at least indorse
my letter, they even found it not necessary to
answer! Instead they whispered silently silently
on astronomers world convention 92/93 : have you
heared, the Sun moves ? And soon after some swiss
astronomers then really found a planetary system
like ours(1994). But again, they misunderstood
the whole thing completely: You should not look
for short-time orbits if you want to find a
system like ours. You got to look for Suns with
orbital cycles in the range of 10-20 years!So
it seems nothing has changed since the times of
Galilei. The only difference is that church and
physics have changed the roles - today it is
physics which you may not argue against - even if
the theory they have on that special issue is by
nothing prooved, is weak as a plumcake. And you
don't get the cup of hemlock today for stating
something like this - you only are considered as
the fool on the hill. You're
getting lined up with all those letter writers
who want to prove physics that the perpetuum
mobile is possible - despite the laws of
mechanics.
|
|
|