It is interesting to see when the different hypotheses that are presented on this site will get acknowledged by physics and science in general. The evidence of most of these hypotheses was found by means of simulations similar to the one which is downloadable from this site. It is not hard to predict that such simulations will become the preferred method in future studies to our solar system and the universe in general. Even the exact point in time when earth captured the moon can be found by this method by synchronising the program with real historical data.

The only problem in this method lies in falsification of a wrong theory: it can always be argued that the simulation wasn't appropriate or the data was wrong. But if many different researchers all come to the same result it should be clear that there is something wrong with such a theory (this is the reason why there is no simulation program downloadable from this site to the 'Nebular hypothesis').


First doubts in conventional  theory


Exoplanets (wobbling of stars) completely unknown before 1995 1995 (Defacto), 2005(1), Oct 2010
Nebular / protoplanetary hypothesis wrong (too many, so only some links) 2005, Apr 2010 or here, Oct 2010, Dec 2010 and here, 2011, 2011 Jun 2011,
2019 Ultima Thule/486958 Arrokoth shows how celestial bodies really come into existance
Solar activity / sun spots due to planetary motion 2003,2008,2009,2010 2019
sun not a fusion  reactor (Feb 2011),(jan 2011) 2019
Missing masses and missing energy due to false interpretion of stellar masses* (Hertzsprung-Russell-Diagramm etc. etc.) and not knowing of the existance of extrasolar planets and dark stars and and and......

*this has many other implications...

(jan 2010)(sep 2010)(feb 2011)(Aug 2011: Cold star)(May 2011) 2019
Planets captured

(defacto already acknowledged since you can read in more and more scientific articles the term "tidal friction" or "tidal heating" or "tidal dissipation" in connection with planets)

(2012)  (2012)

(see Nebular hypothesis wrong)

2019 Ultima Thule/486958 Arrokoth
Mars lost his moon(s) (has effects on surface water, volcanism, magnetic shield, marginal atmosphere....)

(Deimos and Phobos are captured asteroids and not considered as moons)

(see below: "The Universe: Mars The new evidence")

(see Nebular hypothesis wrong)

Earths moon captured (see Nebular hypothesis wrong) (2011)(2012) ?
Earths geological activity due to tidal forces of the moon ? ?
Earth has won considerably in mass since its existance (has deep impact on all sciences) (2011) ?
Extinction of dinosaurs and other mass extinction events due to win in mass of earth

(Since mono causal answers tend to be always wrong there were surely other causes too.)

? ?

1)Seidelmann, P. K. 2005, Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac.  (I could list more but these shall suffice for the moment. Some are even not considered for inclusion here. See for example under news the actual changing view what concerns supernovae etc etc...)

UC Berkeley's A. Filipenko presented in the history channel documentary: "The Universe: Mars The new evidence" the here first postulated hypothesis "Mars lost his moon(s)" as the newest - although still quite controversial - theory on the history of mars. And since this site presents a coherent theory it is not possible to take just one part of the theory proposed here. So it is likely that this is the first step of acceptance of this theory in whole.

The important role of the moon for life on earth as formulated first here is accepted by more and more scientists: "Second, many scientists believe that life could not have evolved on Earth had the moon not been around to stabilize its axial tilt, preventing extreme variations in climate. Planets with a relatively large moon would therefore be more promising as habitable planets. "Without a massive moon, it is not clear how, or if, intelligent life could develop," says Ben Moore, a computational astrophysicist at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Zurich."


 It should be noted that most of these ideas were already expressed in my letters to the german physics headquarters of 1991 - or were implied in those notes - and the general idea I discussed already since 1969 with many different phycisists and other natural scientists. With no big success, as should be obvious.  (Not to mention my calculations in school at least four years earlier)

Remember what Luther said about Copernicus: " The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."  Absolutely nothing has changed in the 500 years (467 to be exact) since Copernicus published his ideas.  Quite contrary, it seems the acceptance takes today even longer... On the other hand me too I' am interested in a thorough investigation of the problem.

 Copernicus (german: Kopernikus) was the first to describe correctly the movements of  the planets on their orbits, which prior to him were thought to be due to magical forces of mystical ghosts.

By the way: Indian astronomer Aryabhata (476–550) proposed already 1000 years earlier a heliocentric system based on a planetary model in which the Earth was spinning on its axis and the periods of the planets were given with respect to the Sun. The ignorant and arrogant Europeans were too blind to see how far ahead this civilization was.


I can only repeat my statement from 2002:

Ten years today in science are what used to be in earlier times whole centuries. I think I gave the physics comunity enough time to get the picture straight by themselves. No one can say I'm overly ambitious - as was said about Galilei.

But why this whole thing has no more time to wait, is simply because there are human lifes depending on this theory. Because if this theory is right - and it is right in my eyes - we soon can predict earth quakes and vulcano erruptions. All that lacks are the right measurements. If physics wouldn't have neglected gravity for so long, we could be much farther by now.