Dirac's new radioactivities #343 Atom Totality theory 4th ed

Chapter 12
Subject: precession of Mercury translated into about 2cm/year??

--- quoting from Wikipedia on the precession of Mercury perihelion---

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=B10.04
General relativity

5600.0
Total

5599.7
Observed
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---

Funny how scientists of the past century were able to knock themselves
out and over on the components of Mercury precession of perihelion,
but when it came time to analyze the components of a 3.8 cm/year Moon
recession from Earth, it was left untouched as a monolith of just
tidal friction and no word about Dirac's multiplicative-creation.

In the Atom Totality theory there is no need or room for General
Relativity which becomes nothing but the Dirac ocean of positrons as
Space itself. So gravity is the attraction, albeit weak attraction, of
the positron Space upon the ordinary matter of Space (which happens to
be electron matter of Atom Totality (so do you get it?? positron
attracts electron??). So you see, a positron attracts a electron
because they are opposite in sign and thus gravity is this EM
attraction of space itself with the matter in that space. Albeit,
10^39 weaker of a force for gravity
than if it were proton to electron attraction in EM.

So if we dispense of GR as not needed, then how do we explain the
precession of Mercury perihelion? Well, both astronomers and
physicists have been very derelict in one aspect of the Sun that they
continue to ignore. I am talking about radiation pressure of an
outward
radiation pressure.

Well, I wonder if the units of measure of the above of 42.98=B10.04 is
of the same order of magnitude as 2 cm/year recession of Mercury
towards the Sun?

In other words, I replace arcs of precession with that of distance of
recession due to multiplicative-creation versus the Sun's radiation
pressure.

Chapter 12
Subject: precession of planets or satellites is due in large part to
multiplicative-creation coupled with Sun's radiation pressure





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. I recommend a first
read of Dirac's book Directions in Physics, 1978, starting at page 71.

The old way of doing Solar System astronomy fails in the account of
precession, Sun's radiation pressure, tidal forces, and most important
of all Dirac's new radioactivities which is the creator process of our
Solar System. 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. Think for a
moment, that if the 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. All except Mercury with its huge Sun radiation
pressure. Now 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, the 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 coupled with Sun's radiation pressure. We can replace the 43
arcseconds by Dirac's multiplicative-creation of about 2 cm/
year falling into the Sun coupled with Sun's radiation pressure.

Is there 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. 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, precession no longer is some mystery plastered
with General Relativity. Precession to Dirac is the components of
multiplicative creation with tidal forces and with Sun's radiation
pressure, in 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.

Has any astrophysicist computed how twin stars affect one another in
radiation pressure? Has any astrophysicist computed how a exostar
affects a huge gas giant orbiting the star in close proximity? Does
the radiation pressure become significantly reduced for a gas giant
than for Mercury which is very solid.

So the evolution of our solar system is pretty much dead and over with
in the Nebular Dust Cloud theory, but in the Dirac Model, our solar
system has not even evolved to a twin star by Jupiter as yet.

Chapter 12
Subject: accurate table of the precession of all the astro bodies in
our Solar System

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 when coupled with the Sun's
radiation pressure.

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 for 4 billion years
and counting, if the Nebular Dust Cloud is true? I say no. I say that
a measured steady quantity of Dirac multiplicative creation is the way
we have a Saturn with its ultra delicate rings existing for 4 billion
years. Can the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn be moving towards the
Sun and not their parent planet in a Nebular Dust Cloud theory? I say
no, again.

Just the important measure of the precession of
planets-- and that they are all
falling into the Sun is indicative of Dirac's multiplicative-creation.

Chapter 12
Subject: which of these two models is the true one-- Dirac's model or
Nebular Dust Cloud and does Triton-Neptune favor one?

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. Because the Sun would be the biggest mass and be
multiplied upwards more than any of the planets.

If the Nebular Dust Cloud model is true then by probability, you would
have half the satellites falling into their planets and the other half
escaping their planets as probability.

Now Triton is getting closer to Neptune, and I 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 a collision course is something
different.

So the conditions on satellites is that they have to have been borne
originally to the planet that they orbit. Borne by Dirac's new
radioactivities themselves. And even if Triton falls into Neptune it
does not 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.

Recently we have evidence that Earth's moon was a wandering moon that
may have collided with Earth some 4 billion years ago.

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.

Chapter 12
Subject: explaining Mercury's orbit of a rosette-figure


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 as solar systems evolve into twin stars.

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 me 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 for gravity was also given by Dirac with his idea of Space
being a ocean of positrons. Since the Cosmos is one big atom of
plutonium and the mass/matter in the cosmos is just the last 6
electrons of this gigantic atom, means that gravity is the positron
attraction of
the electron-mass/matter.

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