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 during their proto-state. What does
happen after it 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's diameter:
1.4e8 meter; Sun's diameter: 1.4e9 m;
distance Jupiter-Sun: 7e11 meter.
Many Jupiter-like planets are observed next to their stars.
We round the average distance to 1e11 m. From
this result follows:
w = 2 x 1.4e9 m x 1.4e9 m /
(1.4e8 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 others). 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 cluster 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 bit 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 almost 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 close 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, many 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 clusters, 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. Consequanty, 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