|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
evolution of our solar-system as exo-solar-system and why global
Now some are going to take a false conception and viewpoint. They are
going to argue that the only reason the exoplanets discovered so far are huge and in a close-tight orbit around their exostar is because only those "big fellows" are going to be seen by our instruments. They will argue that if the planets were small then we would not observe that exoplanet. But what I argue is that since we have discovered quite a large number of these exoplanets with these characteristics, means that such is a pattern of Nature and such is the pattern that most every solar system whether our own or whether a exo system will follow. So that the pattern of solar system evolution is a pattern wherein a star eventually has huge planets orbiting in close tight orbits around the star. So that our Jupiter will one day be huge and orbit in a close orbit around our Sun. Earth will likely be swallowed up by this future Jupiter. So the question before us is how does Solar System Dynamics have such a programmed pattern? And the reasonable answer is that it is all coming from a Dirac Multiplicative-Creation process. In Multiplicative-Creation as can be read for details in Dirac's book "Directions in Physics" 1978. In that process, matter is multiplying up where matter already exists. So that the Sun grows larger and so do the planets, meaning that the planets become ever closer and tighter in orbit around the Sun. This means that the orbits of satellites around planets becomes increasingly separated from their planet and becoming closer to the Sun. So in Multiplicative Creation, the orbits of the planets grow closer to the Sun and the orbits of satellites become distant from their home planet. So in that process we would have Global Warming increases even if we solved humanmade global warming. Looks to me that in the future we have to colonize Mars in order to extend the future of life in our Solar System. I need to examine the orbit of Mercury as per multiplicative-creation. We know Mercury has an odd and strange orbit with a precession. And we, in the past have ascribed that precession to General Relativity as an answer. But I doubt that it was an answer. I suspect the precession of Mercury is the forboding of Mercury becoming swallowed up by the Sun. I doubt that anyone can apply a General Relativity mathematics to the already discovered exoplanets of exostars; meaning that GR was never a scientific truth but merely a algorithm at best. I suspect that when planets end up as close to the star as Mercury, that they are "falling into the star" and all due to Multiplicative Creation of Dirac's new- radioactivities. In old solar systems, it is the multiplicative-creation that causes close and tight orbits of its last remaining planets. Those planets may turn into a twin star to the original star. So that Jupiter ends up becoming a twin star to our sun. Now let us take the opposite view, that of say no-multiplicative- creation. Then can we answer why exoplanets are so huge and close orbiting their star? Can we answer why all of our planets that have satellites, why none of them seem destined to be swallowed up by their parent planet? Why every planet that has a satellite, that the satellite is moving away from the parent planet, whether as small as rings or as large as moons? So the **obvious logic** is pointing to a scenario of multiplicative- creation as the main mechanism driving solar system evolution. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
evolution of our solar-system as exo-solar-system and why global
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Now some are going to take a false conception and viewpoint. They are going to argue that the only reason the exoplanets discovered so far are huge and in a close-tight orbit around their exostar is because only those "big fellows" are going to be seen by our instruments. They will argue that if the planets were small then we would not observe that exoplanet. But what I argue is that since we have discovered quite a large number of these exoplanets with these characteristics, means that such is a pattern of Nature and such is the pattern that most every solar system whether our own or whether a exo system will follow. So that the pattern of solar system evolution is a pattern wherein a star eventually has huge planets orbiting in close tight orbits around the star. So that our Jupiter will one day be huge and orbit in a close orbit around our Sun. Earth will likely be swallowed up by this future Jupiter. 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
evolution of our solar-system as exo-solar-system and why global warming is inevitable with our Sun's future #98 ;3rd edition book: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY
But the moon's orbit around the earth is widening due to energy transfers in
the tides. Why would not the same thing happen to the earth/sun? Marco UCO Lick Observatory Laboratory for Adaptive Optics "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message ... Archimedes Plutonium wrote: Now some are going to take a false conception and viewpoint. They are going to argue that the only reason the exoplanets discovered so far are huge and in a close-tight orbit around their exostar is because only those "big fellows" are going to be seen by our instruments. They will argue that if the planets were small then we would not observe that exoplanet. But what I argue is that since we have discovered quite a large number of these exoplanets with these characteristics, means that such is a pattern of Nature and such is the pattern that most every solar system whether our own or whether a exo system will follow. So that the pattern of solar system evolution is a pattern wherein a star eventually has huge planets orbiting in close tight orbits around the star. So that our Jupiter will one day be huge and orbit in a close orbit around our Sun. Earth will likely be swallowed up by this future Jupiter. 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
precession of planets or satellites is due in large part to
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
accurate table of the precession of all the astro bodies in our Solar
Marco wrote: But the moon's orbit around the earth is widening due to energy transfers in the tides. Why would not the same thing happen to the earth/sun? Marco UCO Lick Observatory Laboratory for Adaptive Optics Yes, thanks Marco; I am looking for an accurate listing of all the precessions in our Solar System of planets and satellites. The escape-velocity of Mercury is 4.3km/sec, Venus 10.3km/sec, Earth 11.2km/sec, Moon 2.3km/sec, Mars 5.0km/sec. Dirac computed a multiplicative-creation of 2cm/year for Moon recession and I suspect that figure translates into about 43arcseconds/century for Mercury. What I am getting at is that when we shuck the Nebular Dust Cloud theory and replace it with the Dirac's multiplicative-creation model that we replace precession with the falling into the Sun. Precession is not some mystery fantasy that the Nebular Dust Cloud paints a picture of, but rather precession is merely the loss of energy of one astro body due to the presence of other astro bodies and this loss of energy is going to plot a future course of a swallowing up or collision. If Dirac's multiplicative-creation is true and the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is false, then, any scientist should instantly agree that to prove one of those theories is true and the other false does not require decades of detail measure and observation. That if one is true and the other is false should be instantly recognized by the data given of our Solar System. Can Saturn have rings if the Nebular Dust Cloud is true? I say no. Can the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn be moving towards the Sun and not their parent planet? I say no. Just a simple glance of our Solar System suggests that the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is phony baloney. And the important measure of the precession of planets-- that they are all falling into the Sun is indicative of Dirac's multiplicative-creation. Marco, can you refer to a source that has a accurate precession data of all the planets and satellites? Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
evolution of our solar-system as exo-solar-system and why global warming is inevitable with our Sun's future #98 ;3rd edition book: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY
In article 4a6f2ff0@darkstar,
"Marco" writes: But the moon's orbit around the earth is widening due to energy transfers in the tides. Why would not the same thing happen to the earth/sun? I'm sure it does, but I suspect Jupiter's perturbations (and even Saturn's) are a much larger effect. Every few years, someone does a new study of the long-term stability of the Solar System. So far, the answer always comes out that it's stable as far as the calculations go (phew!), but the fact that people have to do numerical calculations says the conclusion is not obvious. Recently there was even a claim that GR gives somewhat greater stability than pure Newtonian gravity. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
which of these two models is the true one-- Dirac's model or Nebular
Sam Wormley wrote: Marco wrote: But the moon's orbit around the earth is widening due to energy transfers in the tides. Why would not the same thing happen to the earth/sun? Earth tidal bulge leads the Earth - moon line. I cannot speak for Dirac, other than to say that he would agree that planets orbiting a star will eventually lose energy, unlike an atom where its electrons never lose energy and that is the difference between Quantum physics and Classical physics. So the question that Marco is posing and which this discussion is focused is that we are assured the planets will lose energy and the system will change and evolve over time. So the focus is on which of these two theories is true, for both cannot be true and one has to be a dud and fake theory: (1) Dirac's multiplicative creation model (2) Nebular Dust Cloud model So which of those two are the true model? If Dirac's model is true, would mean that all the planets and their satellites are falling into the Sun over time. If the Nebular Dust Cloud model is true then you would have half the satellites falling into their planets and the other half escaping their planets as probability. Neptune's tidal bulge lags the Neptune-Triton line and Triton is getting closer to Neptune. Well, Sam picked out an exception, however, I did not set a definition boundary of what are acceptable satellites. Triton is a captured satellite, so it was never an original creation of the Neptune planet, but that Triton was already wandering. So the conditions on satellites is that they have to have been borne originally to the planet that they orbit. And even if Triton falls into Neptune it does not support eliminate either model since the outcome of the Dirac Model is that all will fall into the Sun. The evidence of exoplanets in exosolar-systems supports the Dirac Model and eliminates the Dust Cloud model. You cannot have huge planets circling a star so close and tight in orbits with Newtonian Mechanics coupled with General Relativity. For solar systems to routinely end up as gas giants circling a parent star means the main mechanism is a form of a gradual increase in mass where mass already exists. So the evidence of exoplanets, alone, supports Dirac Model and disparages the Nebular Dust Cloud Model. For the many exoplanets now on record, all following a similar dynamics of evolution of huge planets orbiting so close to their star means that solar systems have a mechanism of increasing in mass where mass already exists-- multiplicative-creation as Dirac outlined, and thence becoming a twin star and perhaps finally falling into one another. So although Titon and Neptune are exceptions, is because they are exceptional circumstance of being a wandering moon captured by Neptune. What I am testing these two models is "natural moons" or moons that were borne to the parent planet, for in Dirac new-radioactivities with multiplicative- creation, a natural-moon is a moon borne from a "quantum-seed" that the parent planet was borne from a different quantum-seed at about the same time. So that the moons of Jupiter are all natural moons as well as the moons of Saturn. I doubt the Moon of Earth is a natural moon, it may have been and that Mercury at one time was the natural moon of Venus. But the Moon of Earth since it has orbited Earth for nearly 4.5 billion years would qualify as a natural moon since it was under Earth's influence for that 4.5 billion years time span. So the commonsense question is given those two models and looking upon our Solar System today, which is the most "believable" given the data and facts? As I said before, from exoplanet data of huge planets orbiting close to their star and because in our solar system, everything is heading for a falling into the Sun, that the Dirac Model is the most believable. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
explaining Mercury's orbit of a rosette-figure #104 ;3rd edition
Steve Willner wrote: In article 4a6f2ff0@darkstar, "Marco" writes: But the moon's orbit around the earth is widening due to energy transfers in the tides. Why would not the same thing happen to the earth/sun? I'm sure it does, but I suspect Jupiter's perturbations (and even Saturn's) are a much larger effect. There are alot of factors to keep track of. All the more puzzling as to why the astronomy community delineates the components of the precession of Mercury's perihelion yet when they receive a Moon recession of 3.8 cm/ year they act as if it has no other component other than purely tidal friction. As I said earlier, we have two competing models of how the Solar System came to be. One is the old Nebular Dust Cloud Model and the other model started in 1978 when Dirac using Large Numbers Hypothesis arrived at a new-radioactivities with multiplicative-creation. To be able to say which of these two models is the true one and the other the fake one, as I said earlier, should not be over a number such as 2 cm/year for the Moon moving away from Earth but should be settled by the obvious data over all the Solar System. The two models are so vastly different, that a scientist should not be waiting for micro numbers to tell him/her which of those two models is true. So vastly different are the two models that anyone with a keen sense of intuition, of how things work mechanically could sense which is the faker and which is the truer. When you read about exoplanets, the case is solved in that Nebular Dust Cloud could never lead to that scenario. Only multiplicative creation can end up with a mechanism revealed in exoplanets. Looking at the precession of Mercury perihelion in 3D it traces out what is called a "rosette type figure". Precessions are all loss of energy and a falling in. Spinning tops precess when their energy gets low. But there is a component of dynamics of the impelling of radiation from the Sun upon Mercury giving it an outward motion. So if Mercury were falling into the Sun by say 2 cm/ year there is the counterbalancing of the Solar Radiation upon Mercury. So these two components of the inward falling of Mercury due to Multiplicative Creation of whatever that number is? Let us say it is twice as large as Dirac's Moon figure of 2 cm/year and let us say it is 4 cm/year for the Sun pull of Mercury to fall into the Sun due to multiplicative-creation. Now I have to compute what the approx solar radiation pressure is on Mercury as a yearly effect. So let guess it is around 3.5 cm/year on average. So that leaves us with a overall component of 0.5 cm/year inward falling into the Sun due to Multiplicative Creation. Would that number cause a rosette- figure of Mercury's orbit? Every few years, someone does a new study of the long-term stability of the Solar System. So far, the answer always comes out that it's stable as far as the calculations go (phew!), but the fact that people have to do numerical calculations says the conclusion is not obvious. Recently there was even a claim that GR gives somewhat greater stability than pure Newtonian gravity. -- GR is demoted in this new model for GR is not a mechanism but a description. The description is that mass bends space and matter follows the curvature of that bent space. So GR was never a mechanism and the mechanism is new-radioactivities with multiplicative-creation. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
evolution of our solar-system as exo-solar-system and why global
Marco wrote:
But the moon's orbit around the earth is widening due to energy transfers in the tides. Why would not the same thing happen to the earth/sun? Marco UCO Lick Observatory Laboratory for Adaptive Optics There might be some local-scale evolution of the system, such as the Earth-Moon system, but the large scale migration of gas giants closer toward the Sun can't happen anymore. The next evolutionary phase that will happen to this system is when the Sun goes red giant, and all of the planets will get further away due to the Sun's mass loss. As for the Earth-Moon system, at some point in the future, the Earth will become tidally locked to the Moon, just like the Moon is to the Earth, and any further migration away will stop. Yousuf Khan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
where is the term for solar radiation pressure in the calculation of
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: Steve Willner wrote: In article 4a6f2ff0@darkstar, "Marco" writes: But the moon's orbit around the earth is widening due to energy transfers in the tides. Why would not the same thing happen to the earth/sun? I'm sure it does, but I suspect Jupiter's perturbations (and even Saturn's) are a much larger effect. There are alot of factors to keep track of. All the more puzzling as to why the astronomy community delineates the components of the precession of Mercury's perihelion yet when they receive a Moon recession of 3.8 cm/ year they act as if it has no other component other than purely tidal friction. Wikipedia delineates the components of the Mercury perihelion precession: --- quoting Wikipedia --- Sources of the precession of perihelion for Mercury Amount (arcsec/century) Cause 5025.6 Coordinate (due to the precession of the equinoxes) 531.4 Gravitational tugs of the other planets 0.0254 Oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment) 42.98±0.04 General relativity 5600.0 Total 5599.7 Observed Thus, the predictions of general relativity perfectly account for the missing precession (the remaining discrepancy is within observational error). --- end quoting Wikipedia --- At this very moment in time there is a Messenger Spacecraft orbiting near Mercury and using the Solar Radiation Pressure to guide the spacecraft. If any one of us were near Mercury, the most obvious fact is the fact of the Solar Wind, the radiation pressure of energy coming from the Sun. So intense is that radiation pressure that it is guiding the Messenger Spacecraft. So, the question is, in all the components listed above for the explanation of the precession of Mercury perihelion, where is the term for Solar Radiation Pressure? So when the authors of the above Wikipedia entry say "predictions of general relativity perfectly account for the missing precession" would in my opinion, considering that they missed solar radiation pressure should say this, -- predictions of general relativity perfectly brainwashes for the missing precession. Much of modern day astronomy is a science that has a habitual nasty habit of omission of terms whenever a group wants to brainwash in their favor. For instance, recently in the case of finding that the Moon is receding from Earth by 3.8 cm/year is the omission of Dirac's multiplicative creation term of about 2 cm/year. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Researchers find Global Positioning System is significantly impacted by powerful solar radio burst (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee[_1_] | News | 0 | April 5th 07 04:10 PM |
Evolution of Circumstellar Disks Around Normal Stars: Placing Our Solar System in Context | Joseph Lazio | SETI | 0 | June 19th 06 12:09 PM |
BREAKING NEWS! Billy Meier Right AGAIN! New Planet - Extraterrestrials -- Aliens - Space - Solar System - Evolution - Creation - Hubble. | Ed Conrad | Misc | 5 | August 2nd 05 03:02 PM |
BREAKING NEWS! Billy Meier Right AGAIN! New Planet - Extraterrestrials -- Aliens - Space - Solar System - Evolution - Creation - Hubble. | Ed Conrad | Amateur Astronomy | 8 | August 2nd 05 03:02 PM |
BREAKING NEWS! Billy Meier Right AGAIN! New Planet - Extraterrestrials -- Aliens - Space - Solar System - Evolution - Creation - Hubble. | Ed Conrad | UK Astronomy | 5 | August 2nd 05 03:02 PM |