important preliminary finding:
There are no Kepler-ellipses for planetary orbits in our planetary system!
(Elliptical orbits are known for a) Juputer-comet-family as for instanc Churi-Gerassimenko in Rosetta-Philae-mission b) in Kuiper-belt around the BRANDNEW calculated NEW PLANET – Neptun-seize, 10-times Earth-mass, oribtal period 15.000 years -, the latter needing empirical confirmation, c) HEO satellites)
I may add: I have seen a commented by Nassim haramein presentation of NASA-Sun-findings, in which were lots of new comets with extreme PARABOLIC movements, caused by a TURNING POINT (“perihel”) EXTREMELY NEAR to the body of the sun. Well, if it`s true, that parabolic features are OPEN at one end, how can it be stated, that we will see those comets ever to return???
download pdf – E66-no-kepler-orbits-total
This essay is dealing only with a) planetary orbits und b) restricted to 2 mathematical arguments, which are the socalled “numerical eccentricity” small epsilon and the perihelia-aphelia difference.
It is VERY SELF EVIDENT, that my “everybody-findings” NEED discussion in DIFFERENT CONTEXTS of today astronomy – and the first question would be: IF so, if planetary circles in the skies, WHAT ABOUT THE VELOCITY of planets? You see: IF THEY are right, and there indeed would be ellipses, they should run into HEAVY difficulties regarding the VELOCITY!
Next point of discussion is, which ELLIPTICAL FEATURES we may meet in our planetary system, which are “HEO satellites” and for instance (Jupiter-comet) Chury-Gerassimenko (see ESA-Astrium Rosetta-Philae mission), which has an ellipse nicely between TWO STRONG FORCES, which are Jupiter and Sun.
Next question would be, HOW they today calculate REALLY and in PRAXI the “planetary system”, in which question two approaches may be helpful Callies/Rainer / Bulirch, Roland (dealing with a 202-body-approximation) and Bretagnon, Pierre (designed for the amateur astronomer as wikibook “Astronomische Berechnungen für den Amateur” for models VSPO82, VSPO87 and VSPO2000). The nice picture of STABILITY of planetary system has been spoiled in meantime by Martin Krause (student of Prof. Eberl) giving very short account on the “Bremen-” and “Karlsruhe-trials” under aspects of “deterministic chaos” and fractal geometry, say 1985 – 1993 or so.
I may add: The tendency to instability and chaos already starts with the MATHEMATICAL FAMOUS “3-body-problem”, which is in mathematical terms UNSOLVABLE, meaning that we have to try approximations only.
But the worst thing, that could happen,. are the NEW results from NASA sun-obervatories , set up since the year 2003 or so and starting with the SOHO-mission. What they present us today AROUND the sun is near to INCREDIBLE: There are HUGE objects “diving” into the sun, objects in seize of planet Earth, there even seems, that an object of 2-times the Jupiter mass has CROSSED the sun, there seems, that in 2005 or 2009 a flyby of an object 2-4times Jupiter-mass has CHANGED COURSE, because of something as strange as a “felt intelligent reaction” of the sun. All this is to be found today free of charge in youtube and cammented by Nassim Haramein, who simply draws conclusions similar to: “There MUST BE SOMEONE caring” (that everything will run smooth in the planetary system and with our sun). “We are given another chance” (regarding the great masses in Jupiter-seize, that did NOT spoil the entire planetary system!) And: “We are floating in grace!”
There are other NEW FINDINGS, as for instance the IBATA-assumption, that there are dwarf-galaxies moving around a central galaxy SIMILAR to planets in a planetary system, which IS strange REALLY!
There are findings normally “not taken into account really”, as for instance that there is PHYSICAL similarity of some sort between STARS and PLANETS (regarding for instance gamma-ray-emmission, radio-emmission etc.).
To make it short here: In my understanding of scientific procedures, MATHEMATICAL ARGUMENTS may AT FIRST be made CLEAR AS POSSIBLE – and the DISCUSSION and PROBING OF CONSEQUENCES following LATER and in SECOND PLACE. And if it must be said: the professional astronomer will see quite a lot of other details, that I as layman have not the slightest idea about! But was is felt disturbing little bit, MIGHT be the question: WHY DID THEY NOT CHANGE THE SCHOOLBOOKS DECENNIA AGO??? Or is there a SECURITY problem, that people should be PREVENTED to KNOW, what was known in the Library of Alexandria, which is, that in OUR planetary system planets mainly are moving on TINY DEFORMED CIRCLES – and NOT on ellipses!
additional research-question to the audience: They often CLAIM, that sections through cones will produce ellipses (and may be symmetrical ellipses in the sense of Kepler-ellipses). MY ASSUMPTION is on the CONTRARY, that ELLIPSES ONLY can be produced via sections through regular ROUND CYLINDERS and that a section through cone will result in an “egg-shaped” graph, which in today mathematical terminology would be called a “symmetrical oval”. Besides the HISTORICAL problem, that Albrecht Duerer took “egg-line” and “Ellipse” as SYNONYMA, it is felt alienating, that this research-question in 400 years did not pop up – at least as seems! It might be even thinkable, that they in former centuries had no SUFFICIENT DISTINCTION between cones and round cylinders, which however is not confirmed. In projective geometry however, the cone may be seen as affine image of a cylinder and vice versa!
Next research question would be: Is it possible to CALCULATE the CIRCUMFERENCE of an ellipse – or should we better take in practical astronomy the RAMANUJAN-approximation on ellipses? Well, so far I read the papers, it seems, that the Ramanujan-approximation is NOT USED in PRACTICAL astronomy. It SEEMS, that Callies / Burlisch has a 202-body-approach and Bretagnon VSPO87 (for the amateur astronomer!!!) an EPHERIMIDES-approach with single-coefficient calcultation in the 400dreds for EACH MAJOR PLANET, done by the computer of course.
Next research question: Was the HELIOCENTRIC switch by Kepler-Galilei-Kopernikus followed by CORRECTED EPHEMERIDES and ASTRONOMICAL TABLES? If so, let me know the bibliographical informations! Or were the MEASUREMENT techniques of that remote time NOT DEVELOPED ENOUGH to have the “tiny of tiny” SYSTEMWIDE CORRECTION FACTOR perceptible at all???
Next research question: Should we search for spheres or for TORUS in old antiquity? Or in other words: MAY be the SPINDLE WHORL of LEPINSKI VIR (as in Andis Kaulins megalith-webprojects – with ZODIACAL MAP OF THE SKIES on surface be correlated to the STANDARD-Torus in type of “spindle torus” (article “torus” in WolframMathworld)? Additional question: I we find, that the CROSS SECTION of a spindle-torus will produce 2 overlapping circles forming a typical ellipse reminding on “vescia piscis” and if we find, that”vescia piscis”is within the geodeical-architecture of Glastonbury and if Glastonbury may be correctly connected with Joseph of Arimathe and even PERHAPS the “young “Jesus” travelling to England, as is the rumor, would this mean, that EARLY CHRISTIANS would ENGINEER and OPERATE an old “residual knowledge” EVEN IF NOT applying those scientific tools, we today think indispensable? and of course: IF SO, WHY continue to think SMALL of our ANCESTORS from FIRST CHRITIANITY??
relevance: research-survey for upcoming book under title:
T-O-maps, Globus Cruciger, Iconography Of St. Anthony Eremita And St. Bruno, The Carthusian: Search For A Deductive Cascade Within Old Cartography And Geodesy Under Aspects Of Paleophysics As Related To Today Hyperphysics —xxx— contribution to “Sagas and Space in Viking Age and medieval scandinavia” presented by University of Zurich, by Sandra Schneeberger and Prof Dr. Jürg Glauser as MOOC in http://www.coursera.org, – April/May 2015/16 –
main language: English – other languages – Neuss: Bruno Buike 2015/16
dedicated to the future Kings – to the crowds of Warszawa Technical University – to Torun Copernicus University
Buike Science and Music