calculations of orbital decay for the Nebular Dust Cloud theory why has no astronomer or physicist calculated

Why has no astronomer or physicist made the calculations of orbital
decay for the planets of our SolarSystem that covers the past 5
billion years. Are they too stupid or too lazy? As far as I know, no
physicist has embarked on that project to show how incompatible and
inconsistent the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is.

Especially for the past 10 years in astronomy where every exoplanet
system has a larger than Jupiter planet orbiting its star at close
proximity.

You see, the Nebular Dust Cloud theory that physicists and astronomers
have come to adore and love for the past 2 centuries is a fake and
lousy theory and falls apart when you include a study of orbital
decay.

The true theory of the SolarSystem is the Growing-SolarSystem via the
Dirac radioactivity where every cosmic ray striking or landing within
our SolarSystem increases the overall total mass of our system. Those
cosmic ray particles came from the Nucleus of the AtomTotality.

According to my theory of the SolarSystem of CellWell1 and CellWell2,
Neptune already is migrating due to orbital decay to be swallowed by
Jupiter some billion years in the future along with all the other gas
giants in between Jupiter and Neptune. That Pluto was once a moon of
Neptune but has now become independent of Neptune and Pluto is the
analog in CellWell2 what Mars is the planet in CellWell1.

Are the astronomers and physicists on planet Earth so stupid, deaf,
dumb and blind and non-imaginative that they have to wait until
Exoplanets of hundreds and thousands of nearby SolarSystems are
completed in detail for those ignorant scientists on Earth to do the
Orbital Decay calculations. And thus find out that their silly Nebular
Dust Cloud theory is a fake and false and stupid theory.

I would guess the physicists and astronomers on Earth are that stupid
and blind and ignorant that they have to wait so long before they
venture out and do Orbital Mechanics Decay and find out that Nebular
Dust Cloud theory is inconsistent.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archy, I ruefully have to acknowledge that that most of your posts
contain a kernal of value.
We don't have the computing resources to be able to hindcast the orbits
of the planets to a significant time in the past (say 1 billion years or
older). My guess is that we would have to include perturbations of
neighboring stars and galaxies as well as the location of the solar
system with respect to its neighborhood in the galaxy. So we make
simple models, maybe 1 star and one lumpy dust cloud. Not because this
is good but because we have limited technology / resources. The dust
cloud hypothesis is accepted now because no one has come up with a
physically consistent alternative.

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Why has no astronomer or physicist made the calculations of orbital
decay for the planets of our SolarSystem that covers the past 5
billion years. Are they too stupid or too lazy? As far as I know, no
physicist has embarked on that project to show how incompatible and
inconsistent the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is.

Especially for the past 10 years in astronomy where every exoplanet
system has a larger than Jupiter planet orbiting its star at close
proximity.

You see, the Nebular Dust Cloud theory that physicists and astronomers
have come to adore and love for the past 2 centuries is a fake and
lousy theory and falls apart when you include a study of orbital
decay.

The true theory of the SolarSystem is the Growing-SolarSystem via the
Dirac radioactivity where every cosmic ray striking or landing within
our SolarSystem increases the overall total mass of our system. Those
cosmic ray particles came from the Nucleus of the AtomTotality.

According to my theory of the SolarSystem of CellWell1 and CellWell2,
Neptune already is migrating due to orbital decay to be swallowed by
Jupiter some billion years in the future along with all the other gas
giants in between Jupiter and Neptune. That Pluto was once a moon of
Neptune but has now become independent of Neptune and Pluto is the
analog in CellWell2 what Mars is the planet in CellWell1.

Are the astronomers and physicists on planet Earth so stupid, deaf,
dumb and blind and non-imaginative that they have to wait until
Exoplanets of hundreds and thousands of nearby SolarSystems are
completed in detail for those ignorant scientists on Earth to do the
Orbital Decay calculations. And thus find out that their silly Nebular
Dust Cloud theory is a fake and false and stupid theory.

I would guess the physicists and astronomers on Earth are that stupid
and blind and ignorant that they have to wait so long before they
venture out and do Orbital Mechanics Decay and find out that Nebular
Dust Cloud theory is inconsistent.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
om...
Why has no astronomer or physicist made the calculations of orbital
decay for the planets of our SolarSystem that covers the past 5
billion years. Are they too stupid or too lazy? As far as I know, no
physicist has embarked on that project to show how incompatible and
inconsistent the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is.

If you're so outraged by the situation, why don't you shut up and do it
yourself???

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
om...
Why has no astronomer or physicist made the calculations of orbital
decay

Please explain what you understand by this term 'orbital decay'

for the planets of our SolarSystem that covers the past 5
billion years. Are they too stupid or too lazy?

Do you know that nobody has done this?

As far as I know, no
physicist has embarked on that project to show how incompatible and
inconsistent the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is.
Especially for the past 10 years in astronomy where every exoplanet
system has a larger than Jupiter planet orbiting its star at close
proximity.

You need to realise that there is a selection effect in that the discovery
of exoplanets is dependent on the size of the planet and the proximity to
the star. Statistically, we cannot assume that the parent population is
similar to the examples found to date.

You see, the Nebular Dust Cloud theory that physicists and astronomers
have come to adore and love for the past 2 centuries is a fake and
lousy theory and falls apart when you include a study of orbital
decay.

Again, please explain in simple terms what specifically what you mean by
this.

The true theory of the SolarSystem is the Growing-SolarSystem via the
Dirac radioactivity where every cosmic ray striking or landing within
our SolarSystem increases the overall total mass of our system. Those
cosmic ray particles came from the Nucleus of the AtomTotality.

The total mass gain is going to be miniscule - even over astronomical
timescales.

snip
Are the astronomers and physicists on planet Earth so stupid, deaf,
dumb and blind and non-imaginative that they have to wait until
Exoplanets of hundreds and thousands of nearby SolarSystems are
completed in detail for those ignorant scientists on Earth to do the
Orbital Decay calculations. And thus find out that their silly Nebular
Dust Cloud theory is a fake and false and stupid theory.

this is where you show your superior scientific argument is it?


I would guess the physicists and astronomers on Earth are that stupid
and blind and ignorant that they have to wait so long before they
venture out and do Orbital Mechanics Decay and find out that Nebular
Dust Cloud theory is inconsistent.

What sort of argument is this ? It certainly ain't scientific

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Robert Ehrlich wrote in message news:VMhMb.25770$na.19673@attbi_s04...
Archy, I ruefully have to acknowledge that that most of your posts
contain a kernal of value.
We don't have the computing resources to be able to hindcast the orbits
of the planets to a significant time in the past (say 1 billion years or
older). My guess is that we would have to include perturbations of
neighboring stars and galaxies as well as the location of the solar
system with respect to its neighborhood in the galaxy. So we make
simple models, maybe 1 star and one lumpy dust cloud. Not because this
is good but because we have limited technology / resources. The dust
cloud hypothesis is accepted now because no one has come up with a
physically consistent alternative.

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Why has no astronomer or physicist made the calculations of orbital
decay for the planets of our SolarSystem that covers the past 5
billion years. Are they too stupid or too lazy?

I go with "stupid" rather than "lazy."

To answer the question, the reason why (in my opinion) no astronomer
or physicist has calculated the orbits of all the planets is: THEY ARE
TOO STUPID. They don't have all the data needed to make the
calculations, and they haven't thought up an algorithm they could use
to do the necessary calculations in a reasonable amount of time.

Robert Ehrlich wrote in message news:VMhMb.25770$na.19673@attbi_s04...
Archy, I ruefully have to acknowledge that that most of your posts
contain a kernal of value.
We don't have the computing resources to be able to hindcast the orbits
of the planets to a significant time in the past (say 1 billion years or
older). My guess is that we would have to include perturbations of
neighboring stars and galaxies as well as the location of the solar
system with respect to its neighborhood in the galaxy. So we make
simple models, maybe 1 star and one lumpy dust cloud. Not because this
is good but because we have limited technology / resources. The dust
cloud hypothesis is accepted now because no one has come up with a
physically consistent alternative.


Fair enough. Perhaps I was too harsh on my criticism, not respectful
enough of the computer time it would take to analyze a decay in orbit
of our planets in the Solarsystem. But I see no hindering of setting
up a supercomputer to do just that task to check whether the Nebular
Dust Cloud theory can sustain the orbits of the planets for 5 billion
years. I seriously doubt it.

I believe we need not add perturbations. I believe that if we start
with our present configuration and go ahead for 5 billion years into
the future that it leads inevitably to a two star system.

I believe the Solar System at present is contradictory to the Nebular
Dust Cloud theory due solely to orbital decay and that we should now
have a 2 star system if true. I believe the CellWell theory is true
and with the constant daily accretion of new mass into the solar
system via cosmic rays has the solar system slated for a twin star
system by 5 billion years into the future.

I seriously doubt also that the exoplanetary systems so far
discovered, that all of them contradict a Nebular Dust Cloud theory of
origin for those systems. I doubt that none of those Exoplanetary
Systems could have come into existence under a Nebular Dust Cloud
hypothesis.

I was probably too harsh on my criticism, but then again har****y is
about the best way of stirring up the community to take a better look
at their beloved Nebular Dust Cloud theory and to begin to raise
doubts in their minds that they have been following and pressing and
pushing a dude theory.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
om...
Why has no astronomer or physicist made the calculations of orbital
decay for the planets of our SolarSystem that covers the past 5
billion years. Are they too stupid or too lazy?

The great tragedy of science -- the
slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact. - Thomas Huxley