Deutscher Text    



Wobbling stars and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GRT/GTR) or "The one sentence statement of general relativity is that ‘gravity is the curvature of spacetime’"

Einstein's space-time-theory and wobbling stars (first detected 1995, more than 4000 exoplanets detected as of may,2019) are mutually exclusive. Wobbling stars have been proven by the thousands in the last decade which makes Einstein's theory definitively obsolete. In 2018/2019 the news increase (from Keppler, UVES, HARPS data etc) that all shining stars have planets and thus all shining stars do wobble (Forbes, one of the top American business magazines: "most (if not all) stars likely have planets around them").

This means that solar systems do not rotate around the central star of the system as asserted in Einstein's space-time-theory (see illustration below, instead they rotate around the barycenter of the system.  This makes a huge difference. In physics there exists no "good enough approximation for most  purposes" (Cathy Jordan,"Ask an Astronomer",, this screenshot was made in 2009). Physics is an  exact science. Even with an obsolete technique as steam engines you would have ended with "good enough approximations for most purposes"  with a pile of junk. And what is true here on earth is even more true in astronomy or astro-physics. So the essence of Einstein's theory of space-time is wrong which states that the mass of the central star geometrically curves space-time ("He (Einstein) decided that (..) gravity must be (..) a geometric curvature.") so that planets follow the straightest path on their orbit around the star: "The one sentence statement of general relativity is that ‘gravity is the curvature of spacetime" Instead the central star and the planets rotate around the barycenter (or center of mass) of the system. This is an unquestionable proven fact by more than 5,388 confirmed exoplanets in 3,979 planetary systems, with 859 systems having more than one planet . The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is expected to discover soon even more exoplanets.

 Distant exoplanets revealed by light from wobbling stars

Quite contrary to Einstein's  General Relativity Theory (GRT) space-time is not curved by the mass of the central star (see the picture below from but stars and planets rotate around their common center of mass (symbolized by the red cross inside the star). If the mass of the planet is big in relation to his star the barycenter is even located outside the star. Same can be true if a star posseses many planets and the constellation puts all planets on one side. According to Newton's equation then less massive planets far out can even have an effect.  Even laymen can thus understand that the basics of Eintein's General Relativity Theory is wrong.

Title of the Wikipedia presentation: A stylized representation of a star and a planet revolving around the common center of mass. Effects not to scale. Credit: Wikipedia: public domain

 This is today no more questioned (see for example here , if this link should get inactive again, alternatively see here) and has  been proven by thousands of new found exoplanet systems since 1995 (Discovery of a Planetary Orbit In 51 Pegasus (M. Mayor & D. Queloz). This news has now in 2018 finally even spreaded to the NewScientist.

And by the way: all professors of physics (a lot of them) that I talked to before the detection of exoplanets  in the 60ths,70ths and 80ths of the last century told me that the solar orbit around the barycenter of our solar system contradicts Einstein's theory of general relativity (and is therefore nonsense). After the discovery of the exoplanets this contradiction strangely wasn't a contradiction any more..

If anyone should have had any doubts in the computer simulation which was downloadable from this site for years, then the 'New Horizons' reconnaissance flyby study should have ended these doubts forever. The 'New Horizons' mission conducted a six-month-long reconnaissance flyby study of Pluto and its moons in summer 2015, culminating with Pluto closest approach on July 14, 2015. Here the world could see in 'real life' pictures that Einsteins theory is wrong. Everyone  who has eyes to see can see here Pluto and Charon rotate around their common center of mass.

Students: Please tell your prof that Einstein's theory of general relativity (GRT/GTR) is conclusively disproven by this movie (this is not a simulation, not an animation, this is filmed reality!). Most prof's (like Brian Greene) haven't got the time to always know the latest science news.

This close up look at Pluto and Charon

Close up look at Pluto and Charon. Credits: NASA/APL/Southwest Research Institute:

 Pluto and Charon rotating around their common center of mass

"The Pluto-Charon Dance: This close up look at Pluto and Charon, taken as part of the mission’s latest optical navigation (“OpNav”) campaign from Jan. 25-31, 2015, comes from the Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI) on NASA;s New Horizons spacecraft.

The time-lapse frames in this movie were magnified four times to make it easier to see Pluto and Charon orbit around their barycenter, a mutual point above Pluto’s surface where Pluto and Charon’s gravity cancels out – this is why Pluto appears to “wobble” in space. Charon orbits approximately 11,200 miles (about 18,000 kilometers) above Pluto’s surface."


Compare this to the following illustrations, where the earth (and thus pluto) should be rocksteady fixed in the skies according to Einstein's theory (in Einsteinian diction: The mass of the earth or the sun (or Pluto) geometrically curves space-time so that satelites (or moons or planets) follow the straightest path on their orbit around the earth/sun/Pluto) There simply is no center of mass or barycenter in Einstein's theory and hence no rotation around the center of mass or barycenter. Einstein's theory of relativity therefore is not in conformance with the laws of physics Anyone who further tells that Einstein's view  is the right one may as well tell that the earth is a flat disc or that a stone flies upwards as soon as you release it.  In one hundred years physicists haven't realized that this theory is not in conformance with the laws of physics, quite contrary it was even expanded: black holes, Hawking-radiation, gravity waves, wormholes... That such disregard of physics laws can lead in the end to great danger and confusion shows this book: "Space, Time and the Limits of Human Understanding".

Using Einstein's space-time theory, not a single second planetary system like ours could be found in almost a hundred years. There are countless books in which leading astronomers already spoke of our solar system as the sole planetary system in the whole universe and as the absolute exception to the rule.

Quite contrary to Einstein's theory of Space-Time the theory of the wobbling stars did lead in a short time after becoming known to a broader public to the discovery of the first planetary system outside ours and in the following years to more than 3979 confirmed exoplanet systems till today! And as already said there are more and more european and US-studies (based on Keppler, UVES, HARPS data etc. ) that state that all shining stars have planets. In contrast to Keppler both HARPS and UVES employ the very precise  radial-velocity technique, which detects exoplanets by measuring the tiny wobbles they induce in their parent star's motion towards or away from Earth, producing a red shift while moving away from us and a blue shift while moving towards  us (it should be obvious that not knowing about the real cause of this red/blue-shift did lead in the past to dramatic misinterpretations since this did not go  unnoticed).


The reality looks completely different. Stars do wobble under the forces that the planets act on stars. This means that the star never or only very rarely is in  the center of a star-planet-system, as Einstein falsely assumed. So the essence of Einstein's theory of space-time is wrong which states that the mass of the central star geometrically curves space-time and that planets follow the straightest path in the curvature of spacetime:

NY Times 1997 article: the wobbling sun

Read this The New York Times article from 1997 click on picture or this link to view the original article

And quite contrary to the today world wide no more questioned wobbling of the stars the english language wikipedia page concerning barycentres shows since nearly 20 years an  intentionally  faked representation:

wikipedia.en barycenter screenshot vom 21.2.2020

wikipedia.en representation of solar system barycenter

Screenshot of en.wikipedia/barycenter taken 21.2.2020. Title: "Motion of the Solar System's barycenter relative to the Sun".

Think what would happen if many planets would rotate around this star ?

This representation is since nearly 20 years intenional fake news, this is fake(d) science. Because it exchanges with full intent sun and barycenter. On this (german) wikipedia-page you can read why.This physics theorem states that forces between the distinct mass points of a system have no effect on the movement of the  barycenter of the  system ( "Kräfte zwischen den einzelnen Massenpunkten des Systems, haben dagegen keine Auswirkung auf die Bewegung des Schwerpunkts."). As it seems this  all important physics theorem and wikipedia page exists  only in german wikipedia. In case it should disapear now - as so many pages referenced by this site - here is a local copy. So are we now reentering the game of the NASA-barycenter-page? After this site was online it took about 10 years that this page appeared on the NASA-for-kids pages  (to tell the world how unimportant  a barycenter is and only of interest for kids ), then another 4-5 years that this barycenter-page appeared on the scientific NASA-pages.

The only possible explanation is that the real rotation of the sun around the barycenter contradicts Einstein's Space-Time-theory. These guys have read on my pages that the wobling of the sun around the barycenter of our solar system (and thus the wobbling of the stars) contradicts Einstein's Space-Time-Theory and so they simply exchanged in this diagram barycenter and the sun. (the barycenter page in wikipedia did not exist before was online in 2002. Only in 2003 a first version with minimal content went online as a wikipedia page. The NASA page concerning barycenters went online very much later, around 2014, but was not in the beginning accessible due to invalid SSL-certificates till 2015?/2016?) Since it is absolutely impossible that no one noticed this forgery and stupitity for nearly 20 years this must be full intent to fool english speaking readers. Or should it really be that this  law does not exist in english physics textbooks? A simple look in a (german!)  physics textbook would have made this stupidity all too obvious.

The same is true for Einstein's free fall without force that causes the free fall. Since 100 years these physicists have not noticed that in Einstein's world there exists no free fall, because the force that causes the free fall - gravity -  is in Eintein's world no more a force but a geometric entidy. Ask Brian  Greene (Einstein zealot, world science festival) how a free fall without causing force could move any celestial body, e.g. a planet.

Fake science propagator google ( and bing ) show the barycentre rotating around the sun - against all physics  theorems   :

Das Baryzenter unseres Sonnensystems in bing, wie es laut englischer Wikipedia um die Sonne rotiert

Das Baryzenter unseres Sonnensystems in Google, wie es laut englischer Wikipedia um die Sonne rotiert






After all it is no big wonder that Einstein's Space-Time-Theory (GRT) is regarded by an ever increasing number of physicists as doomed: Nobel laureate David Gross from the stronghold of physics at princeton (besides University of California Santa Barbara and Harvard University):  “Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed.” Quite similar statements can be heard from Edward Witten and George Ellis. Nathan Seiberg of the well known Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton says, "I am almost certain that space and time are illusions. These are primitive notions that will be replaced by something more sophisticated." A.Strominger: "The notion of spacetime is clearly something we're going to have to give up". S.Coleman: "If you ask questions about what happened at very early times, and you compute the answer, the answer is: Time doesn't mean anything." Nima Arkani-Hamed (Perimeter Institute and Institute for Advanced Study): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced..." Nima Arkani-Hamed is one of the leading high energy  physicists of his generation.  Here a link to one of his presentations. Here another presentation of Arkani-Hamed. The commenting text of this presentation: "The union of quantum mechanics and gravity strongly suggests that "space-time is doomed". And Steve Giddings  answers the question which scientific idea has to be retired: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." Petr Horava (University of California, Berkeley) "wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another in order to come up with a unified theory that reconciles the disparate worlds of quantum mechanics and gravity - one the most pressing challenges to modern physics.")  Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time.  In  Europe Carlo Rovelli tells in his book "The Order of Time" of 2018: : "At the most fundamental level that we currently know of (..) there is no difference between past and future, there is no spacetime."

 It should be clear that such strong statements as Everyone in string theory" or "Almost all of us" tell of profound frustration and reasons of miscontent. On the other side some authors even see the human race  at its intellectual limits:  "Space, Time and the Limits of Human Understanding", Shyam Wuppuluri and Giancarlo Ghirardi,Eds, Springer International 2017.