Attiyah's Planetary Motion

[attiyah zahdeh]

It is out of doubt that from the Earth we can not at all directly see the other side of the Sun. Therefore, from the Earth's point of view, the Sun is two hemispheres: the perpetually Sun's Earth-facing hemisphere and the perpetually Sun's anti-Earth hemisphere. The perpetually unseen solar hemisphere is known as the far side of the Sun. However, if the Earth really rotates around the Sun according to the Kepler's first law, then it will be absolutely impossible to have any side of this star permanently unseen to the Earth-stationed observers. Therefore, I consider that nothing can account for this case as long as we continue adhering to the Kepler's first law.

I introduce this hypothesis in order to be discussed by scientists. I do not claim that I now have any mathematical proof or practical model to support Attiyah's Planetary Motion. I consider that the Kepler's second and third laws themselves support my hypothesis. It seems to me that Kepler failed to conclude that, relative to the Sun, the motion of the planets is the same as of the pendulum.Thus, he coined his second and third laws as alternative statements to express the laws of the simple harmonic motion of the planets. I'm inclined to say that Kepler (1571-1630 A.D.) was not aware of the work of Galileo (1564-1642 A.D.) on the pendulum and the laws of its motion he discovered.

The hypothesis of Attiyah's Planetary Motion is four propositions:

1- The planets move not around the Sun but in front of it.

2- The planetary motion in front of the Sun is of the simple harmonic type.

3- The planet (the bob), gravitational force (the length, the line between the planet's gravity center and the solar gravity center) and the Sun (the solar gravity center as the pivot point), altogether form a pendulum.

4- The planets oscillate in front of the Sun in hemiellipses or quasihemiellipses.

Notes:

1) This hypothesis is an alternative of Kepler's first law only.

2) This hypothesis does not apply to the motion of the satellites.

===============

Kepler's three laws

· Kepler's first law (The Law of Ellipses): The paths of the planets around the sun are elliptical in shape, with the center of the sun being located at one focus.

Thus, Kepler rejected the ancient Aristotelean, Ptolemaic,and Copernican belief in a circular motion.

· Kepler's second law (The Law of Equal Areas): An imaginary line drawn from the center of the sun to the center of the planet will sweeps out equal areas in equal intervals of time.

This means that the planet travels faster while close to the sun and slows down when it is farther from the sun. With his law, Kepler destroyed the Aristotelean astronomical theory that planets have a uniform velocity.

· Kepler's third law (The Law of Harmonies): The ratio of the squares of the periods of any two planets is equal to the ratio of the cubes of their average distances from the sun.

This means not only that larger orbits have longer periods, but also that the speed of a planet in a larger orbit is lower than in a smaller orbit.

Edited April 5, 2008 by SaRuMaN
Updated content by request

[therion24]

I agree with Kepler's Laws but I still think that planets ORBIT the sun.

2- The planetary motion in front of the Sun is of the simple harmonic type.- care to elaborate?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I do not claim that I now have any mathematical proof or practical model to support Attiyah's Planetary Motion.

Then it is simply nonsense as Kepler can be supported by both observation and mathematically. This isn't a hypothesis it is drivel. I suspect this disclaimer is an attempt for you to avoid disucussion your latest nonsens just as you have refused to answer the point that show you to be wrong on your last nonsensical hypothesis.

1- The planets move not around the Sun but in front of it.

If this were the case then all of the planets would have to be on the same side of the sun all of the time. As observations show that planets can be behind the Sun (from Earth's point of view) your hypothesis is clear nonsense.

Attiyah, a scientific hypothesis is formed from observations. It must explain those observations. You seem to think that any drivel that comes into your head is some sort of revolutionary hypothesis even when you admit you have no observations to back them up. What you are revealing to the world is not the scientific genius you clearly think you are, but rather your total lack of understanding of how science really works.

Edited March 31, 2008 by Waspie_Dwarf

[Fluffybunny]

I generally don't get frustrated when people offer alternative ideas about things, but this is just silly. Good grief, for ever step science takes forward, between the religious right and ridiculous, baseless ideas like this, some people would love to have science take a step back. Fortunately science is based on facts and the scientific method and decades of research backed up by decades of research and will continue to soldier on, but really, this stuff is just out of control. A simple physics class, an introductory astronomy class will make all the magically ideas go away about how the solar system works. We have plenty of observational satellites viewing every aspect of the sun and the rotation of the planets...it isn't anything new. We aren't making this stuff up as we go along.

I am stunned.

Perhaps if you were to take a real college level physics course; an astronomy course; something. I am so flabbergasted as to not even want to argue the point as I can tell it would be pointless based on your opening statement. This isn't even close to the pseudo science of your sun theory as much as a joke as that was, as least it had enough buzzwords to confuse people that didn't know any better; this is simply ridiculous. I am putting my foot down and closing this thread. You can appeal to Saruman to have it reopened but in my opinion it falls under the "garbage posting" rules that are not tolerated here.

Edited March 31, 2008 by Fluffybunny