[removed]

Intuitively very little. And we can simulate that for a bit.

But theoretically we have a problem. Our math and physics can't even prove the configuration we have is stable even though the evidence very strongly indicates that it is - seeing that we can tell that there have probably been no major changes in things for billions of years despite constant perturbation coming from comets and other things probing the system.

So the answer is probably not but we can't be sure, theory doesn't help much and simulation suffers from exponential growth of measurement error in the initial state.

[deleted]

[removed]

Stay in the shade, you'll be fine

Until someone mines all the shade to build a Dyson Sphere

Crematoria vibes from mercury.

At which point there will be plenty of shade, because, ya know, Dyson Sphere. Unless if we're talking about a Dyson Ring or Net, of course.

We’re 100% sure that the orbits are stable for millions of years. A few dinky comets aren’t going to upset that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System

[deleted]

Presumably, if we have the ability to disaaemble entire planets, we more than have the capability to work around any orbital dynamic differences it brings.

Over long enough timescales (geologic, not human), you'd probably notice some changes in the paths of the inner planets, but I doubt you would see anything wildly different, and the outer planets would be mostly unaffected since they outmass Mercury significantly, and are much farther away from the Sun.

In order to keep a more stable Dyson Swarm though, free from most collision risk, those future engineers would probably aim to disaaemble every inner planet, stray asteroid, and the belt for materials. The gas giants would be last due to their mass, and because they're far away so their gravitational influence can be better mitigated with advanced technology.

This isn't something that would happen over a few thousand years or something like that, mind you. If we decide to work our way up to a Dyson Swarm, it could very easily be the project of a million years or more, starting with enourmous clouds of habitats and solar arrays slowly surrounding the planets and their Lagrange points as we need them, before they grow outward to independently orbit the Sun. Both because we won't have the population or industry to use all that excess energy and habitation space immediately, but also because it will take a long time to mine out entire planets out in the first place. It would be a very different world than the one we're used to now.

They are saying our simulations can't prove what we can see. We can see that our solar system has been stable for billions of years but our simulations aren't accurate enough to show that.

Negligible. Why would it matter? If any planets went where you didn't want them you'd just move them.

And our math is not powerful enough to prove stability in the same sense rhat we use for human designed systems.

That's not what I see there. It leads with the statement that numerical simulation is invalid after a few 10s of millions of years.

It then points out that n-body problems can only be handled that way.

It goes on with investigations of known resonances and puts limits on their behavior.

I don't see 100 percent anywhere.