Yousuf Khan wrote:


If there is any evolution of the size and orbits of the planets in a
solar system, then it is over and done with during the original
formation years. That's when there is a lot of material in the planetary
disks which would allow a large planet formed far out in the disk to
migrate toward the centre through momentum transfers to planetesimals.
Planetesimals are only around in abundance during those early years, and
once they are gone, there are no chances of migration inwards anymore.

In a mature system like our Solar system, all planetesimals are gone
already, therefore the existing planets are in a stable orbit until the
Sun itself evolves out of the main sequence. When the Sun evolves to its
next life phase, the planets will actually migrate outwards rather than
inwards, due to mass losses by the Sun.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf, the Dirac new-radioactivities of how the Solar System was
formed
and how it will evolve out in the future is far different than the
Nebular
Dust Cloud theory that you abide by in your above. I recommend a first
read of Dirac's book Directions in Physics, 1978, starting at page 71.

As Marco indicated in the followup post, that the old way of doing
Solar
System astronomy fails in the account of precession and the tidal
forces
that have planets falling into the Sun and has satellites wandering
away
from their parent planet. Such falsehoods and errors of planet and
satellite
orbits as given by the Nebular Dust Cloud theory no longer accurately
describe
the true motions of our Solar System. Yousuf, think for a moment, that
if
your Nebular Dust Cloud theory were true, that by probability, half of
the
satellites that presently exist should be falling into a collision
course with
their parent planet and that the Rings of Saturn should not even
exist.
But according to Dirac's model of new-radioactivities, every satellite
in our Solar System should be falling towards the Sun and moving away
from its parent planet. Now, Yousuf, is that not what you see in the
Solar System? Do you not see that every satellite is moving away from
its parent planet? Hence, your Nebular Dust Cloud theory is bogus and
Dirac's model is correct.

The Precession of perihelion of Mercury is falsely described by the
Nebular
Dust Cloud theory as saying it is General-Relativity, when actually it
is
merely the falling into the Sun according to Dirac's model. We can
replace
the 43 arcseconds by Dirac's multiplicative-creation of about 2 cm/
year
falling into the Sun.

Yousuf, can you point to an accurate table of the precession of the
other
planets? It is a pitiful shame that one would think the most grave
concern
of the person studying and mastering astronomy would be to know
whether
their planet is falling into the Sun or not and what the future holds
as far
as being swallowed by the Sun. But it seems as though the history of
astronomy has never really tackled that prime essential question.
In the Nebular Dust Cloud theory that Yousuf believes in, in that
theory
the question is sugar coated away and ignored. The question of whether
Mercury is due to be swallowed by the Sun is ignored and a sort of
magic takes over astronomy and physics where it is believed that
Mercury will forever orbit around the Sun from tomorrow to infinity.

With Dirac's model, Yousuf, precession no longer is some mystery
plastered
with General Relativity. Precession to Dirac is the computing of when
Mercury disappears into the bowels of the Sun. Precession of Earth is
when Earth disappears into the bowels of the Sun or Jupiter as Jupiter
increases in size and comes closer and closer to the Sun forming
eventually
a twin star.

So, Yousuf, go ahead and believe evolution of our solar system is dead
and
over with in the Dust Cloud theory, but in the Dirac Model, our solar
system
has not even evolved to a twin star by Jupiter.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies