Dear Hans-G,

The actual theory of solar system formation is wrong, You can find an alternative example in the next work :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327201504_Gravity_a_paradym_shift_in_reasoning

B part

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Hans,

I agree with your conclusions.

As unexpected as this may seem, they are in harmony with the conclusions that can be drawn from analysis of the characteristics of the corona, titled "The Corona effect":

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue11/A07110109.pdf

See section V on page 8 for how a possible mechanical explanation to this mass distribution within solar systems is provided.

Best Regards

André

Dear László ,

I read the very interesting paper that you co-authored with Robert Therriault. Very deep analysis well worth re-reading and pondering about.

You might be interested in the possible mechanics of orbital mean radii variation and planet size variation detailed in the following paper titled "Inside Planets and Stars Masses", starting with Section XIV on page 25:

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol8-issue1/B08011033.pdf

Best Regards

André

Dear André,

Thank you for the post. My co-author was happy when I had sent it to him::'Very nice!'-had said. 

Thank you for your attached file... I have read only superficially because I do not have enough theoretical basic knowledge to it (referring to quark physics), but perhaps enough to understand that our articles have common points. 

Your article is well written even discussing a hard subject, and can learn a lot from your style of writing,

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear László,

Thank you for your comment.

Coming from different background, it is not surprising that we would use different terms to express similar ideas or concepts.

Note that my research is grounded specifically on Maxwell's electromagnetism, which is not currently correctly explained in most textbooks, except in older texts such as "University Physics" by Sears, Zemansky and Young, or "Physics" by Halliday and Resnick. Not to be confused with Electrodynamics which is not squarely grounded on experimental data, contrary to Maxwell's electromagnetism.

Speaking of "quarks", I am not referring to the theoretical quark theory, but to the non-destructive scattering experiments carried out at SLAC from 1966 to 1968, that revealed the existence of two types of point-like behaving elementary charged and massive sub-particles inside protons and neutrons.

It is unfortunate that they were named "up quark" and "down quark" which easily make people confuse them with the theoretical up and down quarks of the Gellman and Zweig theory, and causes people to doubt their physical existence. The scattering records are in the SLAC archive for these two. No other sub-particles were ever discovered inside nucleons.

I assure you that the only theoretical basis required is clear understanding of the equations established by Gauss, Ampere, Faraday and Coulomb that Maxwell synthesized and completed by generalizing Ampere's equation that we now know as his 4th equation, and Newton's mechanics whose equations can easily be upgraded to relativistic and true electromagnetic status.

All charged elementary particles obey these equations, and all elementary massive sub-components of atoms are charged.

Best Regards

André

Dear Hans-G,

You made an interesting remark at the final of your question explanation:

'This means that a gas planet like Jupiter is never to find close to the central star as the telluric planets and a planet like Earth or Venus never rotates at a distance of Jupite or Saturn.'

I rhink that is not can be accepted like a confident conclusion...

Regards,

LÁszló.

Dear André,

Thank you for the post, and make me clearer such a part of theoretical physics, which never was well understood by me. In last 11 years, I have built a personal model of physics concordant what I had observed in my environment... (our environment is the best teacher of us if we can sometimes intuitionally learn from it(he).  I did not have a good teacher in physics in high school, because he thought the physics mathematically...   I remember one part  I had understood strongly: the thermodynamics, 

(The  "up quark" and "down quark")- I do not know if I am saying correctly: have to be something similar with all kind of 'the presence' shoved duality. 

Best Regards,

László

Dear László,

You wrote: " I did not have a good teacher in physics in high school, because he thought the physics mathematically..."

Yes unfortunately, one of the major difficulties in fundamental physics is the very power of mathematics as a descriptive language.

The very self-consistency of all well thought out theories is so appealing to our rational minds that it traps many into forgetting that they must be clearly anchored to physically obtained data coming from our environment, as you mention.

Many teachers get trapped into thinking only from the mathematic viewpoint and forget how important it is to connect it directly with experimental data.

In our day and age, as strange as this may seem for people who want to understand physics, the best textbooks to use are not those prepared for teaching physics, but those prepared for engineers.

If this can help you in your search, if you can get hold of any of the following books, or similar books for engineers in any language, you would find most of the answers you are looking for regarding how to connect theory with physical reality:

Meriam, J.L. & Kraige, L.G. "Engineering Mechanics Dynamics", SI version, published by Wiley.

Çengel, Y.A. & Boles A. "Thermodynamics - An Engineering Approach". McGraw Hill.

Giancoli, D.C. "Physics for Scientists & Engineers". Prentice Hall.

Older undergrad textbooks that unfortunately are no more in use (to my knowledge) really explain correctly the basics of physics:

Sears, W., Zemansky, M.W. & Young, D. "University Physics". Addison Wesley.

Resnick, R. & Halliday, D. "Physics". Wiley

Any of these books should be read before trying to tackle the current crop of standard physics textbooks, such as Jackson, J.D. "Classical Electrodynamics", that unfortunately are practically only mathematics.

One of the best textbook currently in use and that I highly recommend is

Elsberg, R & Resnick R. "Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles", Second Edition. Wiley.

In my papers, I also refer to many formal papers with direct links on the Internet that describe really carried out experiments.

Best Regards

André

It is not exemplary in the sense that less than 1% of planetary systems in our Galaxy have had a similar origin as our solar system. About 4.5 billion years ago an enormous system (with a dark giant in its centre) approached in the vicinity of our solitary sun (which itself was born about 5 billion years ago). The present 11.5 years sunspot cycles prove that the sun was a variable star (with a 3.5 days period) in its youth. This made the sun very sensitive to the external gravitational influences and so, in conjunction with one of sun's own periodic pulsations, the tidal disruption due to the gigantic visitor caused two columns of gas to be disgorged from the opposite ends of the sun. The column which was on the visitor's side has condensed into the (then) 12 planets of our system. The column from the opposite side has condensed into what is now circulating as asteroids and meteors (this is a rough picture because it ignores those asteroids which appeared after gravity-tital disruption of the planet situated between Mars and Jupiter). Jupiter and Saturn were formed from the more massive central bulges of the column. Actually, the retrograde motion of some of their satellites proves that their strong gravitational pull was sufficient to "steal" some of the matter of this visitor. Jupiter and Saturn, originating from the very centre of this highly heater solar gas column were in reality like miniature suns themselves, i.e. shone with a brilliant light.