Home

ARCUS:  The World Formula and its Solutions

Consequently constructed using the results of Albert Einstein and Max Planck leading to the Unified Field Theory

 
Articles
The Preaching
 
 
 
 
  

Why do spherical star-heaps obviously have no planets or only some planets?

My theory expects that all the stars must have a system of planets and satellites in the start of their existence. At least they install this in their protostate. What does happen after it, that is a problem of interactions. Today about 1% of the stars were observed having planets of Jupiter classification or bigger.1 Does this mean that 99% of the stars have no planets?

No, it doesn't! The gigantic planets were discovered while they covered their stars.

This is dependent on the position of the planetary orbit. If all the positions would have the same right, the probability was dependent on following factors:

We neglect the actions of parallax. Jupiter-diameter: 1.4x108 m; Sun-diameter: 1.4x109 m; distance Jupiter-Sun: 7x1011 m.

Many Jupiter-like planets are observed next to their stars. We round the average distance to 1x1011 m. From this follows:

w = 2 x 1.4109 m 1.4x109 m / (1.4x108 m x 2 p  x  1x1011 m) = 5%

(one orbit can be seen two times).

My theory says, there are preferential space positions of orbits, dependent on the magnetic quantum number. Where they are, we cannot know. This decreases the probability to less than 5%. The smaller the planets are referred to the diameters of their central stars which they are covering, the less is the probability. If the planets are smaller than Jupiter to be able to be observed by present technology, the probability decreases again.

But there are more smaller planets than Jupiter-type planets. Especially, gigantic planets similar to Jupiter only arise if the central star would explode and press gas up into the planetary orbits. After my theory such big protoplanets aren't usual (every protoplanet has only small differences to the other). Otherwise, the protostar is substantially larger. This factor decreases the probability again.

Are you able to calculate the exact probability?

I guess because of the tendencies: four times for decrease of probability down to 1% from 5%, that my theory is near the proof that all protostars must have protoplanets supported by 1% observed gigantic planets.

In spherical star-heap NGC 104 no planets were found.1 My theory explains it simply. Protostars export subprotocosms, which install protoplanets and their protosatellite systems. They consist of hydrogen and a little helium.

Protocosms still have a speed of next to light velocity. They are extremely light. If they are opening, the gigantic inside mass is falling out of them. Then the velocity goes down to zero. The installed system is nearly resting there. An extremely small intrinsic momentum gives the sensitive direction of movement falling to the central star. This way, strongly elliptical orbits are following of a direct fall to the central protostar or orbits next to the protostar. Protosystems which are too near to their central stars will be swallowed. External come after them. Only an explosion of the central star can shift the orbits of the protos to the outside.

But if now very much stars lay in the area of that sensitive momentum acting at the opening protocosm, than these protoplanets will be attracted into totally different obits than known.

In spherical star-heaps, a confuse ball game should be started, which has cleared the intermediate spaces of stars by big planets in the meantime.

Think at this: God created the order. Following, it is disturbed by interactions into chaos. Chaos alone, without action of God, does not create order. Simply the law of entropy is working against the laws of God which are a sign of their existence in chaos.

1 - bild der wissenschaft 12/2000: Lebensfeindliche Sternhaufen, page 56

 
 
All rights reserved: Arcus (Heinz-Joachim Ackermann, since1998)