1) You say you are 'using the Newton theory' (presumably the one based on F = Gm₁m₂/r²). What other theory (or theories) are you using?

2) You say "if a planet does not revolve in the plane of the sun's own rotation and circle the sun counterclockwise, it will not be stable and its course will be deflected". What is the time period in which such an initially counterclockwise planet would be either expelled from the solar system, collide with the Sun or another planet, or change its orbit to a 'normal' one?

I appreciate that the answer to this question will depend on several factors, perhaps the initial counterclockwise orbit's radius, ellipticity, and inclination. Please answer the question with reference to the key factors.

3) The equations of motion of bodies under mutual (Newtonian) gravitational attraction are relatively easy to simulate, for a system like our solar system. Indeed, it may be that you can download some such, for free. Have you modeled your idea with such a simulation?

1) The force that runs the moons and planets is the Gravity Force which was discovered by Newton. In my article, I find no more other Newton's theory is needed.
2)The time period for a initially clockwise palnet to change its orbit to a normal one should meet a function, I believe,though I can not offer it right now. The time should be an infinite parameter in the sense of math, for zero is the infinitesimal limit value for the Coriolis Force to reach while reducing the intersect angle between the orbits of such planets/moons and the sun.In the sense of math, this infinitesimal limit (zero) can never be reached.
The bigger the intersect angle is, the more significant the change will be. A vertically circling moon will make the most significant tilting. The tilting speed should be proportional to the differential coefficient of a function as Sin(the angle) or similar. It's not a constant.
3)I am sorry to say that I haven't. Could you please show me how to get it?

Thanks for saying so. The principle applies to the long periodic comets as well as the planets,I believe.

Thanks; that makes things much simpler, doesn't it?It may be that, as Ken G and others have already pointed out, the analysis you have presented is flawed; it may be that it is not.

However, the claims in the OP ("the author of this article found that these main features are not the reflection of the origin of our solar system as most theories hypothesized but are the results of its movement mechanism") are clearly unsubstantiated.

First, there is nothing in this thread related to the "not" - nothing to show that 'most theories' are internally inconsistent or inconsistent with good observational results.

Second, per the item just quoted, without a timeframe, the main claim of this thread is a 'work in progress' (at best) or incapable of being tested (at worst).

In the absence of quantification - at least to the OOM (order of magnitude) level - what further discussion of this claim is possible (other than a discussion of possible flaws in the analysis presented)?

Do you have an estimate of when you will be presenting quantification of the timeframe for the 'normalisation' of counterclockwise planetary orbits (according to your idea), Chineson?Why don't you start a suitably worded thread in BAUT's Q&A section?

The link in my 1st post will allow you to download such software. Its a program that I wrote. It's how I made the graphic that I put in the link.

Thank you very much. I have clicked all the links within our posts, but only opened blank screen.

Although in some formal sense this statement is always correct, in practical terms we are not at all uncertain
at this point that the analysis is flawed. I have stated exactly why it's wrong. To summarize, it's wrong because:
1) it does not solve the equations of motion, but claims to know what the solution will look like
2) it claims the coriolis force will cause a certain deflection, whereas the coriolis deflection is well known to have a totally different property, the property of maintaining the orbital plane of the Moon in a frame looking in on the solar system from afar
3) the only equation given does not even apply in this situation, as it only works for a single orbit, not an orbit within an orbit as we have here.
Bottom line: I may as well just state that 1+1 = 3, so all the mathbooks must be rewritten, and hold to this position against all arguments to the contrary. The thread I would so generate would be largely the same as this one.

It may not be so wise for me to explain my points with Coriolis Force. So I reexplain my point with other ways.
Take the second image for example.


Let’s see what will happen if the moon circles the earth freely around the earth polar orbit counterclockwise.

When the moon is right over the earth's north pole, its relative velocity (V) to the sun is the same as the earth because they are at the same orbit distance to the sun. Now the moon circles in, its centripetal force (F) to the sun is reduced. Why, because part of it is balanced off by the earth on the opposite side. On the other hand, its distance to the sun (R) is shortened now. Now let's use the formula



The F and the R are both reduced, but its velocity keeps the same as the earth. So once the moon moves in between the Sun and the Earth, the moon will have redundant velocity and will go faster than the F and R need it. The moon will go ahead of the earth.

Track man knows this principle well in the track and field running game. The first running athlete always occupies the most inner track while turning rounds to prevent others go ahead of him.

Now the moon is in the inner track and with the same relative velocity to the sun, it will surpass the earth. Thus moon’s orbit changes.

When the moon is ahead of the earth, universal gravitation force of the moon-earth and the moon-sun will apply a resultant force that will slow down the moon, only when the speed of the moon is adjusted down by this can the V, F and R in the above formula be kept balanced.

Dear Chineson:

After re-read what your wrote, I realized you are a great thinker, obvious to me, with few access to information, it also seems like your internet access is limited.

Physicists and Space Engineers have already solved the equations of the rotating object in space, for more than ... oh ... 100 years, that's how they sent people to the moon.

The motion was perplexing that great minds invented lot of good theories, you are definately one of them ............... however, the real surprise is, it's counter-intuitive, solution is complex unless you are into vector calclus.... of course, better if you have go through a PhD in Astrophysics ...... I suspect most of those that is reading your paper have something like that.

This is just a text book case of rotating object, and have been worked out.
Text books at high school level should have Newton's laws.
Text books at University level concerning gyro motion have answer for it.
Solution can be found in Libraries too, as well as internet.

Those worked out "COMPLETE" mathematical solution are showing rotation system DOES NOT work the way you precieved and decribed by "words".

Chineson: If none of those resources are available to you, Question and Answser section is a good place, please ponder a little more on what other said.. such as.

Others:
Is it necessary to prolong .... ?

Let's try this once more.My comment was meant, as Ken G took it, to say "I make no judgement, in this post, on whether the analysis is flawed or not".

The intent of my post was to show that the Chineson claim lacked even the most basic component - simple (internal) logical consistency.If you choose this perspective, no one can fault it.

With respect to the first claim (other theories wrong), you say:Perhaps our basic English communication is flawed, but this is, to me, a black and white statement, proclaiming that you have not substantiated your first claim. I don't know what else "clearly unsubstantiated" could possibly mean, with respect to this claim.As this relates to something in the future, and depends on you clearly substantiating your second claim, it obviously has no place in this section of BAUT. Please refrain from using this kind of logic in making your claims.And thank you for so clearly stating that your second claim is unsubstantiated.

To refresh our memories; here are the key parts of the claim, from the OP (my bold; if Chineson has modified the claim in any significant way, after the OP, please point this out):The claim is clear; it relates to our solar system, and to stability; it relates a mechanism to the well-observed orbits of solar system bodies.

Re substantiation:

• Did Chineson provide orbital elements of any solar system body (or a link to any)? No.
• Did Chineson show how long it would take for orbits to 'normalise', under any situation whatsoever? No.
• Did Chineson even define 'stability'? No.
• Did Chineson provide derivation, from Newton's equations, of the 'movement mechanism' (which is the core of the claim; at least, as it is written)? No.
• And so on.

Chineson, the BAUT guidelines make it pretty clear - I trust - what sort of discussion forum BAUT is, and what we mean by substantiation (it must follow the scientific method as used in astronomy and space science).

So, within the scope of this ATM section, it seems to me that the Chineson claims are, so far, clearly unsubstantiated.And let me say that, so far, no one has done so; you may wish to consider that the reason for the lack of any 'testifying' is that the ideas you presented here are flawed (in particular, that the application of Newton's equations is just plain wrong).

Let me close by repeating my question: Do you have an estimate of when you will be presenting quantification of the timeframe for the 'normalisation' of counterclockwise planetary orbits (according to your idea), Chineson?

I think I see what is happening. Chineson is indeed making an argument based on some correct intuition, but the inferred effect on the orbit is not what would happen, as is also being pointed out by johntsang. Chineson, you were initially correct that the effect you are looking for is indeed the coriolis effect, and your basic argument about how it works is right, what is wrong is the way you assume it will affect the orbit (and this you are simply assuming, as you have done no calculation to substantiate it, as Nereid points out). But the answer to this is already known, the coriolis deflection does indeed have a simple effect-- it causes the Moon's orbital plane in the co-orbiting frame of your picture to go around a circle in one year, where the axis of this little rotation points upward. If you go back to the star's frame looking in, that little circle is just what you need to keep the Moon's orbital plane to stay just the same relative to the stars as the Earth orbits the Sun. Try to think of going back and forth between these frames, and you will see what really happens. In fact you have just made a fairly easy mistake to make, and seen ramifications to it that excited you. You are doing science, you just made an error. It happens to us all 95% of the time we try to discover something new, but it's all worth it for that 5%! So I applaud your effort, and your willingness to debate it here, but I want to liberate you from this misconception.

Dear Nereid,

You have a clear, insightful and logical mind. Your kind narrating shows the key vulnerabilities in my article. Thanks for doing so.

The weakness of my article is obvious. The deduction is too simple, though the main point of the article looks reasonable. After reading your last post, I know what the word unsubstantiated really means. And I know my article is truly unsubstantiated. You should know that English is not my mother language and this is also one of my weakness in the debating.

For your last question, it seems that I have to modify my answer. Let me close also by answering your close question:

I still hold the point that my article holds. But there would be a long way to go before making it convincing. I hope those who consider my claim reasonable can be help. I myself may not be able to present quantification deduction whatsoever, though I would try my best. I am a government official, very busy in work everyday. So I have no much time to spend on it. I hope we people could help to testify my claim, whether the result is true or not, I would be full of gratitude.

Thank you all!

Chineson, if you are serious about wanting to draw on the efforts of those who have analyzed this problem in the past, to save yourself the time, just go back and read the post just prior to your last one, if you missed it. That is all you will get from a simple analysis of the type you present. It won't even cost you anything!

Dear Ken G,
I had thought of this point before I wrote this article. The axis of the moon's orbit would try to keep the same direction whereever it is around the sun, just like the earth axis would always pointing to the Polaris. This is because any angular momentum has its inertia. The angular momentum of the earth and the moon make a composition of angular momentum. This composition of angular momentum and the other's planet systems' angular momentum will make a total angular momentum with the sun. It seems that the moon should keep a invariable constant angular momentum, but its angular momentum is always exchanging with that of the earth and/or that of the sun.Though the image in my article looks like the moon is in the front of the sun, it applies anywhere around the sun. In a circle, no the front and back concept.

The guidelines for discussion in this ATM section of BAUT are clearly laid out in the BAUT Rules:I strongly advise you to read these guidelines, and to READ THIS THREAD.

It may be that your expectations of what sort of forum this ATM section is are misaligned with the clearly stated purposes of this ATM section.

The example of the Earth's axis always pointing at Polaris is an excellent example indeed. The axis of the Moon's orbit (and rotation, they are tidally locked) also points in a unique direction as the Moon goes around. There are always more complicated effects-- the Earth's axis takes 26,000 years to precess in a little circle, so does not always point at Polaris but does for our lifetimes. The Moon's axis precesses much faster, because of effects very similar to what you are talking about-- the Sun tugs harder on one side of its orbit. But just as with a gyroscope, such tugs have a surprising effect on the orbit. Instead of changing the overall tilt, it just causes the axis to precess at a slightly different rate than the once a year you get from purely the coriolis effect in the co-orbiting frame. To understand this counterintuitive process more, just look up "precession" and "gyroscopes". Basically, until you actually solve the equations to find the resulting behavior, it's hard to guess in advance what will happen. This was the source of your mistake, but as I said, it is a very easy mistake to make and does not represent unintelligent reasoning, it merely shows what a lot of us have learned the hard way-- we must always be cautious until we have actually solved the equations of motion.