HEAVY ERRORS and their concequences: Text collection

01 Historical Outline

⁶⁰]

Babylonians (1500 - 500 BC) Long-term observations of Venus; knowledge of the phases of this planet; apparent orbital movements of the planets – their epicycles – prediction of solar eclipses.

Aristotle (384 - 322 BC) Inferred the spherical shape of the Earth from the circular shape of the Earth's shadow during lunar eclipses. Theory of the four elements: Earth, air, fire and water. Each of these had its own gravity (according to its gravity). Therefore, under earthly conditions, everything moves in a linear and straight line – in accordance with the four elements. However, all celestial movements are curved, according to observations. From this, Aristotle concludes the existence of a fourth element, the ether, which is responsible for a non-rectilinear, i.e. non-earthly movement.

Aristarchus (310 - 230 BC) First, albeit unaccepted, beginnings of a heliocentric world view of the movement of the Sun, the Earth and the planets. Geometrically determined the size of celestial bodies – Earth, Moon (with a 50 % error rate) – as well as the distance Earth-Moon (also approx. factor 2).

Eratosthenes (284 - 192 B.C.)

Measuring the circumference of the Earth

Method: take 2 places with the same longitude but different latitudes

observe differences in the angular height (parallax) of a celestial body (in this specific case: the Sun)

the parallax and the known distance between the two locations, their base, provides indications of the curvature of the Earth.

Hipparchus (180 - 125 BC) Geometric studies. Determination of the distance between the Earth and Moon with relatively high accuracy (34 instead of 30 Earth radii) via the lunar parallax. He found the obliquity of the ecliptic and its precession (more precisely: that of the Earth's axis); compiled the first major star catalogue. Ptolemy (87 - 165 BC) Founder of the geocentric world view (work: Almagest; Earth at the centre of the movement of the celestial bodies), which remained valid until Kepler's time. The movement of the fixed stars and the Sun can thus be described excellently – the planets cause problems. Artifice: introduction of epicycles; these are smaller circles whose centres in turn move on eccentric circles around the Earth. This allowed the movement of the planets known at the time to be predicted quite accurately.

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473 - 1543) Pioneer of the heliocentric view of the world (work: De revolutionibus orbium coelestium libri VI; Sun at the centre of planetary movement). Simple circular orbits of the planets around the Sun elegantly solved the problem of the seemingly complicated epicyclic motion, which simply results from the projection of the motions onto the celestial sphere.

Tycho Brahe (1546 - 1601) First accurate observations (accuracy is in minutes of arc) to test whether the Ptolemaic or Copernican world view is correct. Developed the so-called geoheliocentric world view, in which the Sun orbits the Earth, but all other planets orbit the Sun. Founder of the first astronomical observatory. Among other things, he observed a supernova (1572) and a comet, whose parallax he determined and discovered that this celestial body is much further away than the Moon and that comets are not atmospheric phenomena.

Johannes Kepler (1571 - 1630) A student of Tycho Brahe, he formulated the three famous Kepler's laws as a result of numerous observations based on Brahe's work, which were highly precise for the time. Among other discoverings, he observed a nova (1604) and studied optics.

Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642) invented the first optical telescope, discovering both the four large moons of Jupiter named after him and the elongated shape of Saturn. The latter later turned out to be the planet's ring. Recognised that the period of oscillation of a pendulum of a given length does not depend on the amplitude of oscillation and that the trajectories of thrown bodies under the Earth's gravity are parabolas

important clues for Newton's theory.

Sir Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727) Founder of the golden age of modern celestial mechanics with the development of the laws of motion named after him and the law of gravitation. The fundamental importance of his work remains unbroken to this day – with a few exceptions, modern methods of celestial mechanics are also based on his theories. His main work is set out in the Principa Mathematica (1687). It was not until Einstein's general theory of relativity that more precise results were obtained, although these are only relevant near compact objects (neutron stars, white dwarfs, black holes).

Edmund Halley (1656 - 1742) Contemporary and friend of Newton. For the first time systematically calculated orbital elements of comets on the basis of Newton's theory. Among other things, he predicted the orbital period of the comet named after him.

Johannes D. Titius (1729 - 1796); Johann E. Bode (1747 - 1826) Found empirical law of the distances of the planets from the Sun; rn ≈ 0.4 + 0.3 - 2n, n = - ∞, 0, 1, ...; the Titius-Bode series. They postulated the existence of bodies at the position n = 3 where, as we know today, the asteroid belt is located.

Friedrich Wilhelm Herschel (1738 - 1822) Discovered the planet Uranus (1781), which fits into the Titius-Bode scheme under the index n = 6.

Guiseppe Piazzi (1746 -1826); Franz X. v. Zach (1754 - 1832) Search for a planet at n = 3 of the Titius-Bode-series

Piazzi provisionally found the asteroid Ceres (1800), which later (New Year's Eve 1801) according to theoretical orbital determinations by Carl Friedrich Gauss (see below) was rediscovered by Zach.

Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777 - 1855) mathematician; used the method of least squares to calculate possible orbital ellipses of Ceres that were compatible with the observations of G. Piazzi. Main purpose of this exercise: to rediscover the asteroid Ceres, which had eluded observation for more than a year (see also above: Zach).

1802 - 1804 The discovery of further planetoids: Pallas, Juno, Vesta; whose radial distances from the Sun all fit n = 3 of the Titius-Bode series. This led to the conclusion that they could have been fragments of a large planet between Mars and Jupiter. However, this hypothesis is highly controversial; it is also possible that the gravitational effect of the giant planet Jupiter prevented the accretion of another planet at this point.

Discovery of Neptune Starting point: The calculated orbital parameters of Uranus calculated by Delambre (1749 - 1822) in 1790, which were modelled on the orbital parameter determination according to Gauss, deviated more and more from the observed locations of Uranus over time. In addition to other causes, the description of the constantly increasing deviations due to the gravitation of a transuranic planet became increasingly popular <-> inverse perturbation theory for determining the orbit and mass of the unknown planet.

Jean J. Leverrier (1811 - 1877); John C. Adams (1819 - 1892) They devoted themselves to the above-mentioned task of inverse perturbation theory with the success that both independently presented quite similar orbital parameters of a hypothetical transuranic planet, which were unfortunately ignored by the scientific community for a long time.

Johann J. Galle (1812 - 1910) Started the systematic search for the unknown planet on 18 September 1846 after Leverrier informed him of his theoretical results in a letter. Galle then discovered Neptune on 23 September 1846 in the region of the firmament indicated by Leverrier and Adams.

Henri Poincaré (1854 - 1912) Used the three-body problem to show that the idea, based on the successes of classical celestial mechanics, that all movements in the cosmos could be determined with arbitrary precision if only the initial conditions were known precisely enough, was untenable. The unpredictability is due to the non-linearity and complexity of celestial mechanical many-body problems.

Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) developed the special and general theory of relativity. The latter in particular is significant for celestial mechanics (compact objects: Black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs

Schwarzschild & Kerr metrics, Friedmann universe)

There is no homogeneous, stable universe (perihelion rotation of Mercury's orbit, etc.). His other major scientific achievements: Photoelectric effect; theory of Brownian motion.

02.01

Source: NASA/JPL-Caltech

02 Double and Multiple Star Systems

As early as 150 AD, Ptolemy recorded the double star ν1 and ν2 Sagittarii in his star catalogue: the star at the eye of Sagittarius, which is nebulous and double, but which is not a physical double star as we understand it today. In myths of the time, the star pair Mizar/Alkor in the Big Dipper was already known.

It was the invention of the telescope that made the discovery of many double stars possible. The first such observation was made by Johann Baptist Cysat in 1619. In 1651 Giovanni Riccioli published the theory that the above-mentioned Mizar itself consists of two components (today called Mizar A and B).

According to the latest findings, as many as 60 to 70 per cent of all stars in our Milky Way are part of double or multiple star systems, which is thought to be related to the physical conditions during star formation.

In their search for habitable exoplanets, astronomers using modern space telescopes, such as the Hubble or Kepler telescopes, are discovering new star systems with two or three Suns at their centres that are orbited by planets. NASA's Kepler space telescope, for example, covers an area of 155,000 stars in the constellations of Lyra and Swan. It monitors the brightness of the stars. When the light of an observed object dims, a third object is suspected of passing in front of the stars. If this is repeated at regular intervals, the presence of a planet orbiting this pair of stars is assumed. The size of its shadow cast and the duration of the transit can be used to calculate the distance to the centre and deduce the size and mass of the planet. The masses of the stars in the centre can also be calculated using this data, thanks to common celestial mechanics theory.

Double Star System Kepler 16

Figure 02.01 shows the double star system Kepler 16, which has been detected at a distance of 200 light years. This was reported by researchers in the journal Science on 16 September 2011. The computer simulation created from the recorded data shows a planet passing in front of the two stars. The approximately Saturn-sized planet Kepler 16b, whose density is about 1/3 higher than that of Saturn, orbits the two stars in 229 days at a distance of about 105 million kilometres. This corresponds roughly to the orbit of Venus around our Sun. The two central stars orbit each other every 41 days. Experts call such objects circumbinary planets.

The theory that the two stars are significantly smaller and fainter than the Sun published on www.scinexx.de contradicts the information on the radius of the planet and its orbital period to the extent that the two stars together have a mass of 1.7854E+30 kg, which is approximately the same as our Sun's mass of 1.9884E+30 kg. In addition, the fact that Kepler 16b with the radius of its orbit is smaller than the assumed limit for planet formation in binary systems is very unusual.

According to the classical understanding of gravity, it was previously assumed that a planet in a binary system could maintain a constant orbit if it was at least seven times as far away from the stars as the stars are from each other. Assuming a distance of only 30 million kilometres between the stars (distance Sun-Mercury approx. 58 million kilometres), this would be a required minimum distance of approx. 210 million kilometres.

Double Star System Kepler 47

Figure 02.02 above shows the double star system Kepler 47 (A, B), the discovery of which was reported on 29 August 2012 by the Department of Astronomy, San Diego State University. Kepler 47 is located in the constellation Swan, which is about 3,400 light years away from Earth. In this computer graphic, the star pair is orbited by two planets, the outer one (D) of which moves within the habitable zone. Due to the constantly changing gravitational interactions in this star system, astronomers assume very turbulent, chaotic and unstable conditions in this system. Using the transit method, the researchers were also able to determine their sizes and orbital periods. The outer planet, which is around four and a half times the size of Earth, is probably located in the so-called habitable zone, where liquid water and therefore possibly life can exist.

02.02

Illustration: Department of Astronomy, San Diego State University

In the centre, two stars (A, B) orbit each other once every 7.5 days at a distance of only 15 million km (see figure 02.02 below, not to scale). The planet Kepler 47b (C) orbits the pair of stars at a radius of about 50 million kilometres, which takes it about 50 days. Its weight is about eight times that of the Earth, it is about three times as large and could be a rocky planet.

The second planet Kepler 47c (D) has a significantly larger orbit with a radius of approx. 150 million kilometres, about twenty times the mass of the Earth and requires 303 days for one orbit. It is similar to the gas planet Uranus in our solar system. Even if it lies at a similar life-friendly distance from its two stars as the Earth does from the Sun, life on this planet is probably not possible.

These parameters can be used to determine the mass in the centre according to the law of gravity.

Variant 1: With a radius of 50 million kilometres and an orbital period of 50 days (planet Kepler 47b), this is a mass of 3.9620E+30 kg.

Variant 2: With a radius of 150 million kilometres and an orbital period of 303 days (planet Kepler 47c), this results in a mass of 2.9129E+30 kg.

These two different results actually call into question Newton's law of gravity, which is valid throughout the universe. This is because both results should be roughly the same if you compare the mathematical calculation model with the method used to determine the mass of our Sun. This is due to the fact that the mass of our Sun can be calculated both with the distance to Neptune (4,495 million kilometres) and with the much smaller distance to Earth (150 million kilometres) as well as with the distances of the six remaining planets, which in all cases provides an approximately identical result of 1.9884E+30 kg.

02.03

Illustration: 2016 Lynette Cook

I was asking myself why, at this small distance of only 15 million kilometres from each other, the two stars do not immediately merge into one star, if you compare this constellation with our Sun and its enormous gravitational pull (distance Sun - Mercury 58 million kilometres), which is supposed to force all planets into their orbits.

Double Star System Kepler 1647

Figure 02.03 shows a simulation of the double star system Kepler 1647. The closely orbiting pair of stars was discovered on 14 June 2016 by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, is around 3,700 light years away from Earth and is located in the constellation Swan.

Unfortunately, no information is available on the distances of the orbiting pair of stars. It is orbited by the Jupiter-sized gas giant Kepler 1647b, whose mass is about 1.5 times that of Jupiter, at a distance of 2.72 AU = 408 million kilometres, which takes it 1,107 days to orbit. Its orbit is in the habitable zone. Life on it may be probably not possible, but possibly on an orbiting satellite that has not yet been discovered. Due to its orbit and the time required, the combined mass of the star pair is approx. 4.3916E+30 kg, i.e. more than twice that of our Sun. As astronomers believe that such large planets cannot survive for long in such unstable binary star systems, they are very surprised by the age of Kepler 1647b, which is 4.4 billion years old – about the age of our Earth.

03 Space-Time-Quantum-Zero-Point-Energy ⁶²]

Nebulous Space-Time Curvature

In his younger years, Einstein used to put his disciples (purely mentally) into rockets or trains or dark lifts and surprisingly many believed (and believe) him that there can only be subjective, relative views of the world, regardless of the fact that, for example, the stationmaster has objective knowledge regarding currently stationary and moving trains. Not all of them travel through space at almost the speed of light, but Einstein nevertheless explained (still plausibly for many) that space is connected to time – and that this spacetime is curved by mass. He could not explain all the cases of attractive force effects mentioned above, but only attributed the effect of gravity to curved space (without explaining why and how mass should produce this curvature).

Everyone knows this dented blanket (Fig. 03.01 top row centre), along whose slope the planets fall around a Sun, always straight ahead, whereby straight in this case means a curve. I doubt whether anyone could gain a concrete idea of space-time or understand Einstein's theories of relativity – because it is not possible to understand what is wrong, but at best to point out the errors (which is sufficiently available in extensive literature). Here, for example, is an arbitrary compilation of images on gravitation through space-time curvature from the Internet (like these from websites of renowned scientists). It is up to everyone to agree with these visualisations, but I would just like to ask the following questions:

As with the blanket above, the grid of space-time is dented downwards in all the images – but why or what should pull this blanket or grid under the respective mass in each case?

If a planet or moon were to slow down a little, would they fall into an orbit south of the south pole?

The funnel at the bottom left is intended to show the powerful curvature into a black hole. Do masses only have a gravitational effect in one direction or should there not be many such funnels around the black hole?

Does it make sense to visualize this model in this form? And can this idea of space-time curvature exist in reality?

03.01

Illustration bottom centre: Robin Dienel

Mind you, the experts spend decades to visualise this crucial fact in apt images. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary from high-ranking scientists, practically all main-stream physicists still invoke the validity of the theory of relativity. I also refer to Einstein, but to his late statements on the real existence of an ether.

Four-Dimensional

In this context, the report on the 25th International Congress of Mathematicians in Madrid is interesting. The mathematician Grigori Perleman from St Petersburg, sometimes described as the most intelligent person in the world, does not accept the Fields Medal – one of the highest honours – although he has – possibly – solved one of the most difficult problems in mathematics: the nature of the surface of four-dimensional bodies (and thus significance for this space-time world view). He would possibly be entitled to the one million dollar reward by the American Clay Foundation for the clarification of the Poincare conjecture, on which experts have been racking their brains for 100 years.

I was previously believing that maths, as the clearest of all sciences, had no problem calculating in any number of fictitious dimensions. But obviously the problem must not concern real relationships such as the surface of a fictitious body. On the other hand, it is reassuring that maths refuses to find a solution when overly unrealistic fictions are put forward as axioms. In this respect, it should be clear that Einstein's famous mathematics cannot reflect reality either (as has been pointed out many times).

But again, I agree with Einstein: Curvature plays a crucial role in reality, there is no such thing as an exactly straight line. Figure 03.02 shows a curved space at A (see curved X-, Y- and Z-coordinates) and in it something is supposed to move from E to F on a curved path. Relativity mathematicians will have fun calculating this inclined path relative to the respective curvature of space, specifying all locations and accelerations.

03.02

However, I am struggling with direction of where the vector of inertia is pointing. Straight ahead, of course, but this does not mean exactly forwards, but a direction in all current curvatures in all three dimensions (if you ignore time as the fourth dimension of this movement in space-time, i.e. if you only consider a three-dimensionally curved space).

For example, when a comet comes close to the Sun, it intersects the spectrum of curved space lines inwards. At its reversal point it moves on a circular section around the Sun, i.e. its inertia now also points into the circular line – and how should it ever be able to leave it again? If you judge by the pictures above, in the end they all gather south of the south pole.

The Term Space

Colloquially, space is used in the sense of, for example, living space, intermediate space, hollow space and the like. In a scientific sense, space is a purely geometric concept. To describe shapes, locations, distances, movements, etc., a rectangular coordinate system is useful, the zero point of which can be chosen arbitrarily. Einstein is right: pretty much everything is curved – everything can be curved, especially the paths of movements. Only these fictitious coordinates of an abstract space (at B) must not be curved, but must theoretically be thought of as completely rectilinear, otherwise not even a curvature can be described.

Only in this purely geometric sense the clear term space is used, within its arbitrarily chosen section each location can be clearly defined with simple X, Y and Z specifications (for the figurative meaning of space the common term universe is used). Terms such as left/right, front/back, top/bottom, which always refer to this fictitious coordinate reference system, are usually sufficient to describe it.

The picture at B again shows the movement of something from E to F. This is an illustration of a real movement. The something must be real, otherwise it could not move in reality. Space, on the other hand, is not real, but exclusively a fictitious concept, only necessary for the exact observation or discussion or communication of real processes. Non-real space can never have energy. Only the ether is real in space and the energy is only ever the movement of the ether.

The term ether, which is perceived as old-fashioned today, is used here intentionally. This is because the more up-to-date term space-energy is merely an abstract combination of two fictitious terms, i.e. empty words whose use only causes confusion and can never provide an explanation. Nor should we equate space with ether, because space is an abstract concept, whereas ether is a real substance.

Concept of Time

In the picture above at C again coordinates X, Y and Z are drawn resp. areas of green, blue and red characterise this space. Something (G) moves unevenly in it on an uneven path. Twelve positions (easily defined by coordinates) of this red point are marked during the course of the movement. Next to it at D a clock is shown, whose hands are moving in known manner (and twelve positions during movement are marked at border of clock-face). Here in this picture, the red dot assumes the above positions one after the other (and the distance it has travelled is marked). The illustration also shows various positions that this clock hand assumes one after the other.

Only the movements are real, whereby those of the red dot and those of the hand are completely independent of each other. Of course, the dot and the pointer can only be at one specific position in space at a time and then move to the next position. In this rough visualisation, it naturally takes a moment for both to reach their next position, but there is no such thing as time anywhere in reality.

In us and around us there is no real space (the green-red-blue walls above), but only the continuous movement of everything (including what appears to be at rest) is real. There is no such thing as time as a real phenomenon; rather, every measurement of time goes back to some suitable movement.

Only when a person wants to determine the speed or its change of a moving something do we bring the abstract concept of time into play.

However, these measurements are only ever a comparison of two independent movements. To determine the distance, a fictitious reference frame of space is used and to determine time, an event that repeats itself as uniformly as possible is chosen (which is ultimately also a distance of the same length as a movement). Theoretically, the scale for distance and time can be chosen completely arbitrarily – and this clearly shows that the dimensions of space and time are completely abstract, while only movement can ever be real – and movement always logically implies a real something.

In this sense, the argument about time has been settled, yet new mysteries are constantly being invented. In fact, time is not constant, insofar as the same clock is ticking differently in a different environment. Clocks are made of atoms, atoms are ether-vortices whose speed depends on the behaviour of the surrounding ether. Even on a mountain, the clock ticks faster than in a valley. The clocks of the GPS satellites have to be calculated backwards (but by a factor of 20 compared to what would result from the theory of relativity).

It is therefore in my opinion a fiction or completely absurd to try to explain the real events in the universe on the basis of the purely abstract concepts of space and time or their combination as space-time or even on the basis of a curved four-dimensional abstraction.

Quantum Theories

If the theories of relativity do not work, then the second pillar of modern physics, quantum mechanics (or its subsequent theory variants), serves to explain this world. Jim AI-Khalili, for example, has illustrated the developments and statements of this science in his book Quantum, for example by means of these magnificent pictures (see Fig. 03.03). The subtitle promises Modern physics to marvel at.

It is astonishing to read the following: On the one hand, quantum mechanics forms the basis for our understanding of the world, but on the other, no one really seems to have understood what it actually means. The paradoxes of quantum mechanics are discussed using the famous double-slit experiment as an example, because no other experiment illustrates its riddles more impressively and beautifully.

Of course, Planck's findings regarding quanta and Einstein's Nobel Prize for the introduction of the photon and explanation of the photo-effect are explained. As a result, it is stated that today the wave-particle duality is established beyond doubt, followed by the observation that physicists find the concept of photons rather confusing.

03.03

Schrödinger devised his famous wave function, the interpretation of which was disputed for decades and is still disputed today. Heisenberg generated the uncertainty principle, which, for example, only allows probabilities for the location and speed of a particle, which are also superimposed to form superpositions, the collapse of which only occurs upon observation. Schrödinger's famous cat was and still is the subject of debate as to whether and that it is really only dead when someone looks into the box – incredibly nonsensical mind games by such clever people. Today, due to decoherence, it is accepted that an event can also exist through interactions of a different kind, just as if the hammer only becomes a hammer when it strikes the anvil.

Using the wave function and superposition, the author starts a second attempt to explain the double-slit experiment, only to conclude: We have the right to a rational explanation, but so far none has been found. The validity of quantum theories is repeatedly invoked because mathematics is logically consistent, but the problem is that nobody can explain the facts correctly in non-mathematical language.

Bohr himself was puting it this way: There is no quantum world. There is only a quantum physical description. It is a mistake to believe that the object of physics is to discover what nature is like. Physics is about what we can say about nature. Somehow this hurts a layman: physics is what physicists talk about nature – and