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 in 2011 finally also others  saw as 'enigma' and 'mystery' which needed explanation. See also here and here


see also Herzprung-Russell-Diagramm [8]

Where the solar nuclear fusion theory assumes the biggest forces - at the center of a celestial body - these forces are in reality zero, not existant.  Gravitational forces at the center of a celestial body simply cancel out and gravitational forces  decay to zero when you approach the center[6]. This is basic vector math and needs no further proof. This is the reason why we find a solid core at the center of the earth (and at the center of all other planets in our solar system, possibly with one easyly understandable exception: mercury) and this explains why iron is found spattered throughout Earth's mantle. And the reason for the perfect round shape of the sun and this is also the reason why celestial bodies of very different sizes are possible. And while physics long time thought that the Kelvin/Helmholtz mechanism isn't appropriate to explain the heating process in the sun, newer investigations to the excess heat in Jupiter and Saturn could  (at least partially) prove the contrary. Since both Jupiter and Saturn radiate more heat than they receive from the sun, a (modified) Helmholtz/Kelvin mechanism was proposed. This would also give an explanation why multiple star systems are so common in our galaxy (Binary star systems are even more common in our galaxy than single star sytems. Even quadruple, quintuple star systems exist.).

Sun's orbit around the barycenter of our solar system (use the here downloadable program or see

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. These forces additionally melt the (very) thin outer crust. This is the whole 'mystery' of stars. The Sun rotates  very much faster at the equator than at the poles (e.g. a ratio of 25 days to 35/36 days, this differential rotation speed varies during a solar cycle at different latitudes, being faster during solar maxima ), 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 composed of many different processes besides the electrical plasma processes in the outer regions of the sun  (what happens for instance to the Hydrogen, Oxygen contained in comets and asteroids?[5]).

Any theory which can't give a satisfying explanation for this differential rotation is bound to fail in the end ( So the first and foremost question to answer for every solar researcher should be 'how can this faster-than-the-core-rotation be explained'. But instead even the most basic questions are not asked by today's solar researchers: On the NASA page "The Big Questions" you only find "The coronal heating process", "The Nature Of Solar Flares", "The Origin Of The Sunspots" and the "Missing Neutrinos") .

In March 2011  mainstream-physics (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) ) is  "just beginning to understand" "that the Sun's plasma rivers speed up and slow down like a malfunctioning conveyor belt" and apologizes "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." And finally in 2015 there are strong indications that the mainstream astrophysics theory is on the way for a complete new understanding which will soon replace the much too simplistic models of today:  "Effects associated with rotation can modify stellar properties, altering the luminosities, surface temperatures, sizes, and shapes of stars in ways that are unaccounted for in nonrotating models."

To make a long story short: Friction in the shear-layer produces heat (the measured 5800 Kelvin on the surface of the sun) which in turn produces convectional plasma flow in turbulent warps and waves. Through ionazation[9] and induction 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. The flares heat the corona through resistive heating. The mass ejections are short circuits when two inversely polarized flares attract each other and finally  collide. The plasma flow rotates in magnetic fields which induce currents maintaining the field. The whole process is a very turbulent action ("Much like Earth's jet stream, whose warps and waves have had severe impact on our regional weather (".."), the bands on the Sun have very slow-moving waves that can expand and warp it too,") with subcycles in the range of years and probably even lower. Finally  feedback effects of the corona on the sun's surface cannot be excluded with possible hysteresis effects.

The differential rotation of the Sun is the key to understanding the Sun and not the rather tautologic explanation given here: "The Key to Understanding the Sun".

"Internal rotation in the Sun, showing differential rotation in the outer convective region and almost uniform rotation in the central radiative region. The transition between these regions is called the tachocline." (Read more here) The tachocline is a layer of strong shear. See also this paper.


Another depiction (with explicit rotation period notation, please note the difference to the picture above esp. in the shear layer near the surface) :

Fig. 5.8 . The rotation rate inside the Sun, determined by helioseismology using instruments aboard the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO for short. The outer parts of the Sun exhibit differential rotation, with material at high solar latitudes rotating more slowly than equatorial ones. This differential rotation persists to the bottom of the convective zone at 28.7 percent of the way down to the center of the Sun. The rotation period in days is given at the left axis, and the corresponding angular velocity scale is on the right axis in units of nanoHertz, abbreviated nHz, where 1 nHz = 10-9 Hz, or a billionth, of a cycle per second. A rotation rate of 320 nHz corresponds to a period of about 36 days (solar poles), and a rate of 460 nHz to a period of about 25 days (solar equator). The rotation in the outer parts of the Sun is given at latitudes of zero (solar equator), 30, 45, 60 and 75 degrees. Just below the convective zone, the rotational speed changes markedly, and shearing motions along this interface may be the dynamo source of the Sun’s magnetism. There is uniform rotation in the radiative zone, from the base of the convective zone at 0.713 solar radii to about 0.25 solar radii. The sound waves do not reach the central part of the energy-generating core. (Courtesy of Alexander G. Kosovichev/convective zone/Sebastien Couvidat, Rafael García and Sylvaine Turck-Chièze/radiative zone. SOHO is a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA.)

Rotation period on the surface of the Sun

"The Sun is a ball of plasma and gas, and does not rotate like a rigid body. Its outer layers rotate differentially with equatorial regions being faster than the polar regions" (image:NASA)

This equatorial belt of magma produces a tug and swirls which 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.)

Finally what concerns radiation from the Sun, read for example here: "The Sun as an X-ray Source"(original text and link disappeared, text has now some additions and small differences): "The X-rays we detect from the Sun (..) come from (..) the solar corona, which is the upper layer of the Sun's atmosphere.(..) the discovery of the hot corona created a big problem for astronomers and physicists.(..) The mechanism by which the solar corona is heated is still not fully understood". In clear words this says nothing else, than where you would expect the radiation to come from if the Sun would have at its core a nuclear fusion reactor, you find no radiation. The big radiation comes from the corona (resp. solar flares), which is the outer atmosphere of the Sun and can in no way reflect the radiation of a fusion reactor at the center of the Sun. So clearly formulated these sentences read like this: "The X-rays we detect from the Sun do not come from the Sun's core or surface, but from the solar corona. This created a big problem for astronomers and physicists".

Our knowledge in this point is still limited and the learning curve is still steep. Just as an example it was until a couple of years ago totally unknown that normal thunder storms here on earth and lightning can produce high energy x-rays and even gamma ray bursts. Stratosphere events produced by these thunder storms and lightnings were until some years ago totally unknown.

The magnetic dynamo of the Sun - also sometimes referred to as 'solar dynamo' - functions  very similar to earth's dynamo, with an approximately/apparent 22-year phase reversal cycle: while in the case of the Sun the outer belt (up to ~ 30° to 40°, but varies over time in a cycle) rotates faster than the core, it is in the case of the earth inverse: the core rotates faster (earths outer crust and core are slowed down by the mechanisms described in volcanism.htm). The exact causes for the pole changes need deeper long term investigations on the objects (Besides this I'm still working on concrete simulations. But these are in too early stages to communicate the results).

The search experiments for the missing solar neutrinos  has reached the third generation. Popular explanation. But also other evidence challenges the assumption that H-fusion is the main source of energy that powers the Sun . And : Despite more than 50 years of effort, today’s nuclearfusion reactors still require more power to run than they can produce. (local copy, original disapeared). 'The New York Times' writes in 2008: "But the state of the art is still what it has always been: fusion can’t be sustained, and the energy released is less than the energy required to produce it in the first place."  New experiments question today's theories: Nuclear reaction defies expectations.

The current model of the solar nuclear fusion cannot explain any of the basic features of the Sun (e.g. the solar differential rotation, the solar dynamo, the solar cycles,  the rather cold surface and heating of the corona, the origin of the X-rays...) and this shows up very drastically from time to time in different investigations but also the basics of todays astrophysics is more and more questioned by newer not purely affirmative studies, only 2 examples: Young [α/Fe]-enhanced stars discovered by CoRoT and APOGEE: What is their origin? and There are many other facts which speak against a fusion energy reactor at the core of the sun. As I already pointed out in my old papers the sunspots are views into the rather cold inside of the sun (where it should be really hot according to todays theory - at least hotter than on the surface). But also the variation of the sun's UV-intensity up to a factor of 20 in a solar activity cycle cannot be explained by the solar fusion theory and and and... From SummaryCoronae.pdf: "The activities in the solar corona also follow the solar cycle . In fact, the level of almost every aspect of solar activities (flares, coronal mass ejections, etc.) follows the solar cycle. " And even the measured neutrino flux varies with the solar cycle: The flux seems to be inversily correlated to the number of sunspots visible. When solar activity is low the flux is high and approaches zero when the number of sunspots has a peak. Physicist Kenneth Lande of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia: "This time variation of the neutrino flux coincides with the well-known 11-year cycle of solar activity", Since this change in flux has now been detected for the second time in two decades there is little chance for a measuring artefact, of such a pattern happening randomly. Lande: "You can think of the peak level as being the real neutrino flux and the reduced level as being the attenuated or modulated level". Since a modulating process is not imaginable (many many proposed since the 90ths, search Google scholar for "neutrino flux modulation": old paper, another, newer) a complete other mechanism must exist. This connection was already earlier reported and then denied in this  paper.

image: Japan Space Agency

The 20-fold UV-intensity variations in a solar activity cycle find no explanation in the theory of a fusion reactor at the heart of the sun.

Another big problem of astronomy is solved as a side effect. A big mystery for astro physics in general has always been the much too low angular momentum of the Sun (if you want to know more search for angular momentum problem). The Sun contains about 1000 times more mass than all the planets combined, but it possesses a mere 0.3 (0.5) percent of the total angular momentum of the solar system. "Jupiter (..)has about 60 percent of the solar system's angular momentum. The four jovian planets account for well over 99 percent of the total angular momentum of the solar system".  (see also: "Astronomy today",Chaisson,McMillan,2005 Pearson Prentice Hall) (Non-uniform rotation presents a certain problem besides others. So the number should be taken as an orientation.)

Also the new findings to the perfect round shape of the Sun speak in favour of this theory: "They also found that the solar flattening is remarkably constant over time and too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation. This suggests that other subsurface forces, like solar magnetism or turbulence, may be a more powerful influence than expected."

In principle this whole description should be evident since long: Since long it is known that the (visible!) Sun does not rotate uniform - the magma belt -, but the rotation rate varies in similar cycles as the sunspots. To every physicist this should be the all important clue to the driving process.


Instead the rather desperate search for dark matter is going on: Plenty of dark matter near the Sun  (see also this follow-up:  Dark-matter hope fades in microwave haze)   after a very disillusioning 2011: Dark matter mystery deepens

Lastly, as wikipedia reported, 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...). Anyway it should be absolutely clear that this has nothing to do with the solar fusion theory.

   (SOHO (ESA & NASA), MDI/SOI and VIRGO data imaged by A. Kosovichev, Stanford University)

  "Concentric layers in a cutaway image show oddities in the speed of sound in the deep interior of the Sun (..) From long-lasting observations by these instruments, scientists deduce information about the Sun's interior (..) In red coloured layers, sound travels faster than predicted by the theories, implying that the temperature is higher then expected. The conspicuous red layer, about a third of the way down from the surface to the Sun's centre, shows unexpectedly high temperatures at the transition zone between the turbulent outer region (convection zone) and the more stable region (..) In blue coloured layers the sound speed is lower than expected, and temperatures are lower too. Most notable in this respect is the very core of the Sun, where the temperature may be 0.1 per cent cooler than the expected 15 million degrees C (..) the cool core may leave theorists wondering if the Sun varies its power-generation over long periods."   Read the full text here:  (It should be noted that this is based on theoretical asumptions about the sun's interior).


"Solar rotation and polar flows of the Sun as deduced from measurements by the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) instrument onboard SOHO. The left side of the image represents the difference in rotation speed between various areas on the Sun. Red-yellow is faster than average and blue is slower than average. The light orange bands are zones that are moving slightly faster than their surroundings. The new SOHO observations indicate that these extend down approximately 20,000 km into the Sun. Sunspots, caused by disturbances in the solar magnetic field, tend to form at the edge of these bands. The cutaway reveals rotation speed inside the Sun. The large dark red band is a massive fast flow of hot, electrically charged gas called plasma beneath the solar equator. Additionally, a newly discovered, but much more subtle, plasma stream+ can be seen in the cutaway at the poles. They are the light blue areas embedded in the slower moving dark blue regions. Finally, the blue lines in the cutaway at the right represent the surface flow from the equator to the poles of the Sun which, as SOHO observations have revealed for the first time, extends to a depth of at least 26,000 km (4% of the solar radius), so that it is likely to be an important factor in solar dynamics, although the flow speed (10-20 m/s) is small compared to random motions at the surface (1 km/s). The return flow indicated at the bottom of the convection zone is from a simple model and has not been observed yet.",

The same context as viewed by NASA looks already very different (please note the spared out parts):

"The image above (from M. J. Thompson) shows the internal rotation rate of the sun with red for fast and blue for slow. The variation we see at the surface between the equator and the poles extends inward and then rapidly disappears at the base of the convection zone (shown by the dashed line)." Read more here:


These papers  are first proves of the calculations and descriptions on this site (see also old_eng.htm and old_de.htm): "The barycentric motion of exoplanet host stars: tests of solar spin-orbit coupling"  (Astronomy & Astrophysics, Jan 2011) 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 tautological 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 answered - since 20 years now - by means of the here downloadable program. And if you don't trust my programming experiences it should be no big challenge to write a similar - and with today's possibilities much more powerful 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: "The global character of solar activity can no longer be ignored". 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.

Also the maunder minimum is now more and more seen in conjunction with our wobbling Sun: "Did Quiet Sun Cause Little Ice Age After All?", as already was mentioned  on my old pages.



The barycentric motion of our Sun and five of the new found exoplanet systems (from "The barycentric motion of exoplanet host stars: tests of solar spin-orbit coupling") ( btw, you can produce yourself such graphs for other exoplanet systems by means of the here downloadable program ):

Barycentric motion of the host star for a selection of representative multiple exoplanet systems. Main plots (central two columns) show the orbit over the indicated time interval in a reference frame with the system barycentre at the origin, with abscissae and ordinates in AU (the solar diameter is R = 6:96 108 m, or 0.00465AU). To the outer side of each orbital sequence, plots show the orbital angular momentum, Lz (upper), and dLz=dt (lower) for the same time interval, in the units as given in Table 1. For the systems shown, star masses lie in the range 0:85 􀀀 1:15M except for BD +20 2457 which is 2.8M . Orbital parameters were taken as follows: the Sun: Seidelmann (2005); BD +20 2457: Niedzielski et al. (2009); HD 168443: Wright et al. (2009);  Ara: Pepe et al. (2007); 61 Vir: Vogt et al. (2010); and HD 37124: Vogt et al. (2005

4 more exoplanet systems:

Read more under links.

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.



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.

Sun spot record over last 60 years (earlier data not really reliable, but even this data should be taken 'cum grano salis'. Most of the early data for these records were won in central Europe. And the year 2012 is the best proof for my statement that you can't see the Sun for months in central Europe. As german poet Heinrich Heine expressed it: "German summer is a painted green winter." (And it is no big secret that England is even more cloudy.) Same is true for actual predictions, as NASA/NOAA notes in the above link from 2009: "Go ahead and mark your calendar for May 2013. But use a pencil")








Some more facts that the conventional theory on stars and planets and their formation out of a disk of dust ('swirling nebula' or 'protoplanetary-hypothesis', 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)

  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. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Most of the found planets have ORBITAL ECCENTRICITIES (some extreme), absolutely incompatible with todays theory on birth of solar systems.
  5. 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.
  6. 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....'
  7. The orbit of0 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.
  8. Planet Hat P-7b orbits its star even more tildet: 86 degrees from the stars equator.
  9. HD80606b's orbit is not only tilted but at the same time highly excentric (e=0.93).
  10. COROT-Exo-1b... "scientists determined that the celestial body appeared to have a 77 degree tilt in its orbit." 
  11. "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...
  12. "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."
  13. "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."
  14. 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."
  15. "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."
  16. Very similar to Wasp-18 : SWEEPS-10. Orbit time of the planet 10 hours.
  17. 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"
  18. 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...
  19. 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.
  20. Many others which could be in this list, but which are omitted since the data is rather uncertain...
  21. 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. Under normal circumstances these cases should suffice since long to render this theory obsolete...

Short explanation for those who are not firm 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. Also the retrograde rotation of Venus 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 the wrong 'swirling nebula' 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.”


See also this report of the 2011 American Astronomical Society's winter meeting: "These models are crap," says Hal Levison of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo. "They may be the best we can do, but they are still crap."

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 "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 today's 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 prove that they are superfluous.

 But there are more fundamental facts speaking against the protoplanetary/nebular hypothesis (ultra rapid orbital periods of some planets, double  star systems and inclined orbits in exoplanetary systems contradict the protoplanetary or 'swirling nebula' theory in a very fundamental way) but since this is not the subject of this site no further explanations here. Only so much: double and more star (3,4..) systems could not have formed according to today's theories (it should be all too obvious that two suns (3 suns, 4 suns..) could not form in the direct neighbourhood of each other in the primordial gaseous cloud). And there are plenty of two or more star systems in our galaxy alone(.."many millions"..), as we know today. Inclined orbits negate fundamentally the protoplanetary hypothesis (a common plane of rotation is absolutely mandatory to explain the angular momentum of stars and planets in this theory).

And it's no big surprise that nearly every other new discovery questions today's theories about how stars and planets form (e.g. Kappa And b: "..Kappa And b could really be a challenge for our theories about how planets form."). How many challenges are necessary till this odd medieval theory falls?

And there is more and more evidence that the content of this site is rather correct in all parts and conclusions: "..Stars Capture Rogue Planets" or "..Orphaned World May Help to Explain How Planets and Stars Form".

All of this leads now to a general review of long standing truths: "Further proof of extraterrestrial origin of quasicrystals" and "Dead Galaxies Aren't So Dead After All"  and "Elliptical Galaxies Are Not Dead" and "Failed Explosions Explain Most Peculiar Supernovae" and "Asymmetric Supernovae: Not All Stellar Explosions Expand Sphericall" and White dwarfs eaten in supernova flare-up and Cosmic-ray theory gets the cold shoulder (to be continued..)

The protoplanetary/nebular-hypothesis is now in 2011/2012 subject to different investigations. Close scrutiny of this hypothesis is done for example by SOFIA, a highly modified Boeing 747SP aircraft that carries a telescope with a 100-inch (2.5-meter) diameter reflecting mirror (cost about 1.5 billion dollars). The NASA-SOFIA-page"Studies of star and planet formation processes are one of SOFIA's 'sweet spots,'" said SOFIA Science Mission Director Erick Young. "SOFIA's infrared instruments can see into the dense clouds where stars and planets are forming and detect heat radiation from their construction material. By getting above the Earth's atmospheric water vapor layer that blocks most of the infrared band, SOFIA's telescope can view the glow from forming stars at their strongest emission wavelengths." The study shell continue at least till 2030. An incredible waste of tax and sponsor dollars to help a weird medieval theory survive the next 20 years. All present theoretical articles thus still adhere to the 'swirling nebula'/protoplanetary theory and maintain the statements of this theory since a disproof of this theory would mean the actual acknowledgement of the contents and statements of this site.

The protoplanetary or swirling nebula hypothesis assumes a primordial gaseous cloud which contracts under gravitational forces and thereby starts to rotate and flatten. Magically in the centre the sun should form and in decent distances the planets. If you simulate this scenario in computers quite naturally absolutely nothing starts to rotate and there is absolutely no reason why this cloud should flatten. The cloud simply collapses. Even stranger is the idea that planets could form on the outer parts of the cloud.

This is medieval wishful thinking, as is the solar nuclear fusion theory. There are no correlating servo controls or sophisticated control circuits or complicated regulating feedback loops built into stars which could keep them from collapsing or exploding. No engineer world wide (let alone a phycisist..) is able to devise here on earth an automatic control system for nuclear reactors, there is always human supervision necessary to control these reactors. Fukushima(2011), Forsmark(2006), Chernobyl (1986), Harrisburg (1979, Three Mile Island), Sellafield (1957, 2005)  have shown what happens if the slightest carelessness, misunderstanding, malfunctioning or unforeseen natural disaster or even minor anomalous event is introduced in this process. (There were more accidents, many more.) And here on earth all 'experts' world wide were at every new accident totally surprised and totally wrong about the possible consequences and damages. But in stars the fusion reaction shall not only function without any human  (or divine?) supervision, no control whatsoever shall keep the built in gigantic nuclear bomb from exploding. A magic equilibrium between gravitation and nuclear force for billions of different - ever and always changing - star masses is not conceivable, it is no scientific assumption (textbooks: "The Sun's hydrostatic equilibrium is stable and self-regulating"[7]) . This is magic medieval thinking, magic pretechnical age thinking. It is even pre-Copernican thinking, where mystic ghosts were thought to be the driving force behind the movement of stars. Obviously today the same ghosts shall  guarantee this magic equilibrium.

And finally: that the universe is a much more dynamic place than physics and astronomy ever imagined is now getting more and more common place under astronomers and no big news any more...






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". Especially if there are other researchers who have found contradictory 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 physicists 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 departments (btw such measurements were already used in 19th century and beginning of the 20th century: in 1912 american Astronomer Vesto Slipher found a red-shift in certain nebula. The starting point of the BIG BANG.)! 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 excuse 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 measurements 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 heavy 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 weird 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.



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.


Copyright © R.Cooper-Bitsch 2006,2009,2011,2012


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! ( 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 " 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?"

5) There are many other sources of hydrogen in our solar system alone. Venus and Mars have lost all of their hydrogen or nearly all of their hydrogen (Mars still disputed 85% or 97%). And even for the early Earth evidence suggests that our planet lost a great deal of hydrogen. Read more here. Since hydrogen can't escape from the Sun to space (Sun is too massive), there should be some form of decomposition process. Many possible processes have been discussed in literature but none seems to explain the whole picture.  There is plenty of literature to this topic in the net (esp. WLF), start here or here or here: Electron beam as origin of white-light solar flares.

Some basics: Very comprehensive and bibliography and links, but very slow loading:, another: and another:

6) Domes have been known since  Mesopotamia and Persia. It even seems to be one of the oldest construction principles and technics of mankind. A dome is nothing else as practically applied vector math (on earth with unbalanced forces outward). In principle, you can think of a (solid) celestial body as made up of many layers of domes (in this case spheres) build one on top of  another.  This explains very intuitively why there is no highest pressure at the center of a celestial body and even more no pressure increase towards the center.

7)"When the force due to pressure exactly balances the force due to gravity, a system is in hydrostatic equilibrium. The Sun's hydrostatic equilibrium is stable and self-regulating; if you tossed a little extra matter onto the Sun, the inward force of gravity would increase. However, the resulting compression would increase the pressure inside the Sun, resulting in an increase in the pressure force just sufficient to balance the increased gravitational force."


8) the following citation from Wikipedia from 5.2.2017 is inserted here for historical reasons:


Most of the stars occupy the region in the diagram along the line called the main sequence. During the stage of their lives in which stars are found on the main sequence line, they are fusing hydrogen in their cores. The next concentration of stars is on the horizontal branch (helium fusion in the core and hydrogen burning in a shell surrounding the core). Another prominent feature is the Hertzsprung gap located in the region between A5 and G0 spectral type and between +1 and −3 absolute magnitudes (i.e. between the top of the main sequence and the giants in the horizontal branch). RR Lyrae variable stars can be found in the left of this gap. Cepheid variables reside in the upper section of the instability strip.

An HR diagram with the instability strip and its components highlighted.

The H-R diagram can be used by scientists to roughly measure how far away a star cluster is from Earth. This can be done by comparing the apparent magnitudes of the stars in the cluster to the absolute magnitudes of stars with known distances (or of model stars). The observed group is then shifted in the vertical direction, until the two main sequences overlap. The difference in magnitude that was bridged in order to match the two groups is called the distance modulus and is a direct measure for the distance (ignoring extinction). This technique is known as main sequence fitting and is a type of spectroscopic parallax.

Diagram's role in the development of stellar physics

Contemplation of the diagram led astronomers to speculate that it might demonstrate stellar evolution, the main suggestion being that stars collapsed from red giants to dwarf stars, then moving down along the line of the main sequence in the course of their lifetimes. Stars were thought therefore to radiate energy by converting gravitational energy into radiation through the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism. This mechanism resulted in an age for the Sun of only tens of millions of years, creating a conflict over the age of the Solar System between astronomers, and biologists and geologists who had evidence that the Earth was far older than that. This conflict was only resolved in the 1930s when nuclear fusion was identified as the source of stellar energy.

However, following Russell's presentation of the diagram to a meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1912, Arthur Eddington was inspired to use it as a basis for developing ideas on stellar physics. In 1926, in his book The Internal Constitution of the Stars he explained the physics of how stars fit on the diagram.[8] This was a particularly remarkable development since at that time the major problem of stellar theory, the source of a star's energy, was still unsolved. Thermonuclear energy, and even that stars are largely composed of hydrogen (see metallicity), had yet to be discovered. Eddington managed to sidestep this problem by concentrating on the thermodynamics of radiative transport of energy in stellar interiors.[9] So, Eddington predicted that dwarf stars remain in an essentially static position on the main sequence for most of their lives. In the 1930s and 1940s, with an understanding of hydrogen fusion, came a physically based theory of evolution to red giants, and white dwarfs. By this time, study of the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram did not drive such developments but merely allowed stellar evolution to be presented graphically.[citation needed]"

9) Ions and electrons moving in differing speeds produce electrical currents. But there are still some open questions. In border areas, no plasma regions and/or regions of incomplete plasma (sunspots etc) charge separation effects (and recombination) should play a role. Only if we assume lower  temperatures towards the center of the sun the whole process becomes comprehensible (and not the atomic fusion reactor at the center of the sun). All in-depth studies show this. Just one example: "When combined with the fact that the center of the umbra is typically 700 km below the tops of the granules (i.e., the Wilson depression), the standard model has it that the layer generating the 5525 K radiation is only 700 km thick, and the sunspot somehow parts this layer, revealing the cooler convective zone beneath. In other words, the belief is that the underlying temperature is 3000~4500 K, while in the topmost 700 km, the temperature jumps up to 5525 K. If a sunspot is there, we peer into what we can't see otherwise. This is an odd piece in the standard model, which has all of the energy propagating outward from the core. If we could peel back the outer layer, we should see higher temperatures, not lower. " You could read this in old_eng.htm and old_de.htm since 2002.


  Apologies: Since so many papers and pages disapear as soon as this site links to them, I store some of them locally.


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

Share this page

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