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!

Gravity, the big unknown force

Nobody can tell you what exactly the reason for gravity is nor how gravity exactly works: we know that the gravity of the moon acts on earth's seas on both sides of the earth - it forms the tides. On the side towards the moon because of gravitational forces, on the opposite site because of centrifugal forces. These tides can be as high as 10 meters(Australia, British coast) or as low as some centimeters. Nevertheless these are gigantic forces, considered the mountain of water which the tides move around the earth. What's more today we know that not only the sea is lifted, but the continents too. Again, only a small amount. But again, considered the enormous masses, these are gigantic forces.

But nobody can tell you for sure for instance how gravitational forces act inside the earth: this is much too low physics for todays phycisists, this is physics of 18th,19th century. No prices can be won here. There are so many experiments conceivable today, but for research in gravitational forces it seems there is no money!

Why didn't I published this in a science magazine?

Because no science magazine would have published it: It's school physics (or first or second semester University physics). It's simple matrix math, nothing a 'real scientist' would even give a dip. Real scientists do matrix calculations while they sleep( that's perhaps the difference: I let computers do the matrix calculations).

No, belief me. no science magazine would publish it. The Internet is absolutely the right place to publish it.

Why do I publish it now?

Ten years today in science are what used to be in earlier times whole centuries. I think I gave the physics comunity enough time to get the picture straight by themselves. No one can say I'm overly ambitious - as was said about Galilei.

But why this whole thing has no more time to wait, is simply because there are human lifes depending on this theory. Because if this theory is right - and it is right in my eyes - we soon can predict earth quakes and vulcano erruptions. All that lacks are the right measurements. If physics wouldn't have neglected gravity for so long, we could be much farther by now.

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 maŠstab- 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.

 
  Solar orbits in the universe

I learned a lot by this whole thing how science works today.

Apparently around 1992/1993 some astronomers heard of the solar orbit and found this theory not totally bizarre.

Obviously the easiest way to prove this theory was to look for stars out there in the universe which were describing an orbit in the here discussed time range.

So it was in 1994 that some swiss astronomers found for the first time a sun out there in the universe, which followed an orbit of a 3 year period. All journals and all newspapers published in big headlines: "Solar system like ours found in the universe!". But again, astronomers misunderstood something totally: not short time movements they should have looked for, but for long time orbits with a cycle time of 10-20 years. What's more, the movement of our sun is that small that it is not likely to be seen from the distance.

But anyway: since that first finding astronomers found 140 (other source: 100) further suns out there in the universe which describe an orbit around the barycentric location of their planetary system.

   
Copyright © R.Bitsch 1991,2002    
   
This page has no traffic limit. Papers and Journals are therefore invited to link to this site.
Last changes on this page: March 1,2003
 
  If you would like to investigate further the effects of gravity on the couple earth-moon or try to model the effects of gravity on the sun: I got a very comprehensive finite elements library. Email.
All questions, criticism and comments are wellcome! mailto:attn@sunorbit.net  
   
Download the program here: gravity.zip

Please be aware that this is no Windows-program! 1990/91 there existed no Windows(or Windows 3.0 which was useful for nothing)! It may function under the Dos-prompt of Windows, but no guarantee given! Be aware that even under Dos there is no guarantee that the program works! When this program was written, the newest VGA-cards were WD Paradise, ET3000 and OAK-cards! There are even some functions which for sure won't work with todays DOS/Windows, because the function-calls have changed (eg the write-comand.) I never reworked the program because I consider it a document.

 

To be continued... (in august)

Latest news: Now also american astronomers report that they have found a solar system like ours in which the sun "wobbles". More later...