What, the moon stands still from time to time? When we take a look at figure 89j which shows us the orbits of Venus, Earth, and our moon we will not only see what a wobbly affair it actually is but also that the Earth is always running away from the moon and that the moon is chasing after it... The path of the moon turns into a kind of garland and the erect points of the garland show the moments in which the satellite is standing still with regard to the sun  in addition to which the attractive forces of Earth and sun would have to add up in this point...
Since the “attractive force“ of the sun is actually rather unscrupulous and snatches every body whose acceleration of free fall is not compensated by the “centrifugal force“, the moon should have long since fallen into the sun. We are confronted with the threebody problem sunEarthmoon  and for that reason, we can definitely forget Sir Isaac Newton. Because with him, this question is extremely hard to answer or not solvable at all. If we take the General Theory of Relativity into consideration as well, we will already be unable to handle a twobody problem! But the GTR ignores the problem anyway because it doesn’t know such a thing as “gravitation“.
The truth is that we have of course a manybody problem with all the planets and moons and especially with the asteroids. We only chose the Earth’s moon as an example because the problematic nature becomes particularly obvious here because of the vicinity to the sun. The greatest mathematicians of this Earth have wasted their efforts in vain to solve the orbital relation of the three bodies analytically. According to Newton’s dynamics, the whole matter should not work at all which is strange somehow because Newton derived his theory from Kepler's laws. We see that a lot is rotten in the State of Denmark. Though one could yet concede that the sun revolves around the Earthmoon system (because it does not matter who is rotating around whom) in 365 days and that therefore a constant distortion of the moon’s path towards the sun would have to result as a maximum. But even a distortion of this kind is not detectable!
Of course, the quantitative comprehensibility does not necessarily become any easier with the repulsion principle. But the loyalty of the moon to its Earth can be explained absolutely logically with our theory. Because the sun does never attract the moon but it repels it actually. The sun is shoving the moon against the universal pressure and the universal pressure is shoving it back. The moon is turned into a pingpong ball  which, clinging in the pressure shadow between the moon and the Earth, jumps to and fro. Do we have to waste any more words on a problem which is so easy to solve when the attractive force is eliminated? He who keeps struggling with gravitation, centripetal force, centrifugal force, mass, and angular impulse will soon end up in the deep water of unsolvable differential equations. And if someone was ever so daring as to tackle the problem by means of the GTR?
Soon we will see that all celestial bodies are playing pingpong with each other (even the sun is racing along at 20 km/h and the planets are following it).
But now we will take a closer look at Kepler’s third law. The astronomer discovered a mathematical relation between the distance of a planet and its orbit. This relation says:
“The squares of the sidereal periods of revolution of the planets are directly proportional to the cubes of their mean distance from the Sun.“
With this law, the relative distances of the planets can be determined solely by means of their sidereal periods of revolution. However, there are slight deviations with the aphelial planets , i.e. the law only works absolutely exactly with the perihelial planets.
A simpler and exacter method of calculation, which makes it possible to derive the distance of a planet from the sidereal periods of revolution in Earth days (when the distance is chosen in millions of kilometres), can be found by simply multiplying this distance with the square root of this distance and dividing it by 5: the result will always be the sidereal period of revolution in Earth days! Conversely, it is possible to determine the exact distance of the planet to the sun from the sidereal period of revolution in Earth days  and amazingly this method works even more precisely than Kepler’s third law!
Thus there is obviously a regularity in the distances of the planets to the sun. This regularity can also be gathered from the law of planetary distances by Titius and Bode by means of which at least the asteroid Ceres was found. Since this law  a simple mathematic progression which corresponds to the orbit radii of the planets  was thought to be a coincidence because of the lack of scientific basic factors it never had any serious significance in astronomy.
Like the other two, Kepler’s third law was also just a conclusion or a mathematical formulation of observed facts. It does not contain any indications to the cause of the planetary movement, the orbital radii, or to the nature of the effective forces. Kepler contented himself with a description of how and where the planets are moving. The application of Kepler’s laws is thus not an explanation of a physical event but simply the account of an observational quantity which was only grasped mathematically by Newton about one hundred years later. But neither Newton nor Einstein could causally unravel the mystery which is contained in the many regularities of our planetary system. The TitiusBode law was soon considered as a whim of nature and laid to rest by the astronomers. But we will demonstrate that this law and the peculiarities concerning the planetary movements can be explained in a very good manner by means of the repulsion principle. In doing so we will come across two more characteristic planetary movements (the rotations of their ellipses and the variations in their plane of motion), which Kepler had not yet discovered und which Newton could not explicitly include in his law...
