The Evidence for and the Theory of Incompleteness

[Fredrick]

While there are connections between the Frameworks, they should each be seen as independent. If we agree that at the overall level incompleteness is the norm, then there is no surprise that the frameworks are to be considered on their own terms.

Let's explore the next framework — the Solar Framework — and view/discuss its own terms.

What is immediately noticeable is that we are viewing a very specific set up of matter. While there are many versions to local set-ups possible, let's focus on the one we know best — a central star and planets around that star. The movement of the Solar Framework is different from the Universal and Galactic Frameworks in that it has everything function and be set up around the star. Said differently: where the Galactic Framework does not have a central entity, and where the Universal Framework is based on the lack of even a communal background, the Solar Framework is actually strictly focused on matter. Because of the specific set up, we can state that:

1/ The Solar Framework is set up around a central entity of matter.



The Solar Framework can be considered as completely engaged with itself. Despite small movements showing that planets do tug on the star, it is the star that delivers the anchor around which the planets move around. Without the star, the planets would not be held together in this framework, and we can state that:

2/ The Solar Framework has a single entity as focus.



To which extent each Solar Framework differs can only be determined by the actual examination. There is no initial set-up that is equal for all centrally focused frameworks. A double star may, for instance, be considered to have originated from the same kind of potential as a single star framework, yet in that result we have Fred and Ginger as the central entities, and not just Fred or just Ginger. This shows us that the outcome and not the concept counts in this framework. Also, each Solar Framework of stars and surrounding planets can differ in actual outcome, despite their sharing the same concept for their creation. Said differently, it's the hardware and the specific computer programs that make the computer, not the operating system. No two computers can be compared to each other for as soon as they are used by an individual, they will (start to) differ. The actual matter (the hardware and the applications) dictates the framework, not the concept (the operating system) of the framework declares that outcome, and we can state that:

3/ The Solar Framework's outcome is unique in nature.



The Solar Framework represents its version of completeness; it is the top of the pyramid. However, it is only the top of its own pyramid, not thé pyramid (which is only found with the Universal Framework at the conceptual level). The star is nevertheless that location in which the original state (the pre-Big Bang state) is represented within matter just as if that were indeed possible. Normally, we should all agree that god cannot be materialized as god, but the star within the framework at least tries to be god-like and contains all materially potential states. We can therefore mention that:

4/ The Solar Framework is a material delivery of a completed state.



Yet the Solar Framework is not static in nature, and we should immediately add that:

5/ The Solar Framework is dynamic in nature.



When viewing the Solar Framework, we know that it is subjected to the Galactic Framework in that it spins around with the entire Galactic disk. Despite the fact that this framework is the material delivery of a completed state, and we can mention that:

6/ The Galactic Framework is a subjected framework.




Within human history, there are many examples of self-focused glorification. Many societies moved towards proclaiming one of their own god. Some would proclaim their leader to be god out right (the Incas, the Egyptians), while others would give their king the power as if he were their god. Louis XV is known as the Sun King, though no one in that society moving more and more towards Enlightenment would consider their king to be god. After him, the many twists and turns of the French revolution would even have a man from Corsica declare himself empire of France (Napoléon), and this shows clearly how people are capable of replacing the person while keeping the framework intact — even to the extent of all people fully acknowledging that the chosen person is not god-like but have him (and not often a her) sit in the top of the pyramid as if god was still around. Empowered kings and queens, and empowered presidents still sit in seats that find their common ground in the Solar Framework.

Where the Galactic Framework shows a very strong singular direction, which is close to impossible to move any other way through space except for the special condition when meeting/interacting with another galaxy, the Solar Framework is not perfectly aligned. The focus can shift and the Wizard of Us may dictate red for a while and then green for a while, while the Wizard himself can fall out of fashion himself, too. The focus of the Solar Framework contains a quasi-fixed, but really only 'temporary' and always shifting focus.

From the functioning of the Solar Framework, we can find something to say about the Universal Framework because the Solar Framework is self-based in nature. We do not circle around other stars; we circle around our own star. Since it is only at the Solar framework that we find an actual material entity as the focus, we can state that the material Universal Framework must therefore also contain only self-focused entities.

I'd like to open this for discussion, too. In how far can we distinguish a Solar Framework that is basically different from the other frameworks? In how far can this framework be used; what are its limitations?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Fredrick, the Solar Framework is so well presented that there is not much to say, at least for now until I think of something.

If all there was was the solar system, it seems that it might operate the same or even better, since it is self-contained, although subject to some asteroids now and then form the outside.

Only a few other exoplanets have been found in the Goldilocks zone, the remainder of 250 or so being in places too hot or too cold.


(though the Amazons may give the outgoing guys some direction as well)

They either said "get lost" or "Travel without MapQuest".

[Profpat]

Well I have a question on our solar system. Was the first 4 planets formed here or somewhere else. The reason I ask this is that it doesn't appear to be the same components, as the sun which is hydrogren and helium. Our Eath elements are far heavier and must have been formed from a more massive star.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Prime Direction

Order to bring harmony
Within the human-world-system.
— Benedict Broere

(‘What Music is Closest to the TOE’ thread)

http://www.toequest.com/forum/theory...html#post18409

The music closest to the TOE
Is the harmony of the TOE itself,
A symphonic orchestra consisting
Of the universal, galactic,
And solar sections
All playing in concert;

Yet, all their instruments are still separate,
No one sound rising above the others,
Such as the pattern between the patterns
Arising to make the prime number keys,
Much like a string plucks its harmonics
Of 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, etc.

It’s not quite the music of the spheres,
Yet, they, too, resonate to it,
Flinging it down from
The Father sky
To our Mother Earth.

So, the songs of life, too, are sung to it,
Yet they are vibrations of it,
And all music repeats it.

It is the pattern outside of the patterns,
The primes conducting all the rest
Of the musical numbers.

(The proof will remain incomplete
Even into the Year 1,000,000,
Yet it is “conditionally” true.)

[austintorn@aol.com]

The prime stuff has been completed here:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...tml#post112926

(Fredrick loves prime talk.)

[Fredrick]

Well I have a question on our solar system. Was the first 4 planets formed here or somewhere else. The reason I ask this is that it doesn't appear to be the same components, as the sun which is hydrogen and helium. Our Earth elements are far heavier and must have been formed from a more massive star.

Our solar system is 'only' 4.6 billion years old, Pat, and with the professionally guestimated age of the universe set at somewhere around 13 billion years, there are about 9 billion years not accounted for.

Since we know that energy does not get lost, there was clearly something on the same track we're going before our solar system was formed. You know that scientists discovered this quite a while ago, and from that moment on we can say that we are made of star stuff as well. The star that existed prior to our solar system (with or without planets, I have no idea) exploded, became a nova. From that nova dust, the entire solar system was starting to form at 4.6 billion years ago (though external add-ons may have occurred since, too).

Whether the star-remnant collective had a spin, I do not know, but I would doubt that. I believe the spin was created (or became emphasized manyfold) by contraction of matter. Just like an iceskater can circle him- or herself faster by pulling in the arms towards the chest, matter would spin faster when the contraction of the collective remnants occurred. Yet, I guess there is space for a little bit of spin left over from before. I really don't know if, for instance, the Crab Nebula spins, but my inclination is to doubt that.

For our solar system, the larger contraction occurred towards the center, but within that contraction smaller contractions also occurred. Whether the planets are different because they started out with being richer in certain elements than the sun, I do not know. Yet the sun got formed because it was in the middle of the entire collective remants, so there may be a point there, Pat. The solar contraction may have occurred more because of location, while the planet formation occurred because there were element in place at a certain distance of the collective center, and they were not drawn in when the collective contraction occurred. Rather, they started collecting contracting matter from around themselves, spinning (faster) themselves, colliding with matter within their own path. I believe there is a good chance that the band of rocks between Mars and Jupiter may have been a planet that collided at a later age (around about 3.8 billion years ago) with another planet or moon that had started circling on an almost similar path. They caught up with one another, some 800 million years after formation of the solar system.

As you know, I do not consider gravity a force by itself; I view it as the synergistic outcome of the forces. As such, our solar system may be floating on our path away from area X (the beginning of the universe) much more as a collective than as centered around (or pulled by) our star. It just appears as if the sun is holding us together. The tugging that occurs as visible in images from distant stars by their planets does indicate the collective force (gravity) is a real force. Yet in how far it holds everything together, or that everything would still stay together without an all-encompassing central point of gravity around, is harder to distinguish. Of course, it is easier to stick around with something like the sun than when there is no such something there; meaning, that when gravity is actually a weak collective force, but the only game in town, then the result would still be pretty much the same.

[Profpat]

"Whether the planets are different because they started out with being richer in certain elements than the sun, I do not know."

Hi Fredrick;

I do not know either. It seems to be the first 4 planets have the heavier elements, whereas the sun and outer 4 planets have the lighter elements. Since this is the only solar model we have to study it begs the question as to why is this?

Best,

Pat

[Graybeard]

The Solar System is believed to have formed according to the nebular hypothesis, first proposed in 1755 by Immanuel Kant and independently formulated by Pierre-Simon Laplace. This theory holds that 4.6 billion years ago the Solar System formed from the gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud. This initial cloud was likely several light-years across and probably birthed several stars. Studies of ancient meteorites reveal traces of elements only formed in the hearts of very large exploding stars, indicating that the Sun formed within a star cluster, and in range of a number of nearby supernovae explosions. The shock wave from these supernovae may have triggered the formation of the Sun by creating regions of overdensity in the surrounding nebula, allowing gravitational forces to overcome internal gas pressures and cause collapse.

The region that would become the Solar System, known as the pre-solar nebula, had a diameter of between 7000 and 20,000 AU and a mass just over that of the Sun (by between 0.1 and 0.001 solar masses). As the nebula collapsed, conservation of angular momentum made it rotate faster. As the material within the nebula condensed, the atoms within it began to collide with increasing frequency. The center, where most of the mass collected, became increasingly hotter than the surrounding disc. As gravity, gas pressure, magnetic fields, and rotation acted on the contracting nebula, it began to flatten into a spinning protoplanetary disk with a diameter of roughly 200 AU and a hot, dense protostar at the center.

Studies of T Tauri stars, young, pre-fusing solar mass stars believed to be similar to the Sun at this point in its evolution, show that they are often accompanied by discs of pre-planetary matter. These discs extend to several hundred AU and reach only a thousand kelvins at their hottest. After 100 million years, the pressure and density of hydrogen in the center of the collapsing nebula became great enough for the protosun to begin thermonuclear fusion. This increased until hydrostatic equilibrium was achieved, with the thermal energy countering the force of gravitational contraction. At this point the Sun became a full-fledged star.

From the remaining cloud of gas and dust (the "solar nebula"), the various planets formed. They are believed to have formed by accretion: the planets began as dust grains in orbit around the central protostar; then gathered by direct contact into clumps between one and ten kilometres in diameter; then collided to form larger bodies (planetesimals) of roughly 5 km in size; then gradually increased by further collisions at roughly 15 cm per year over the course of the next few million years.

The inner Solar System was too warm for volatile molecules like water and methane to condense, and so the planetesimals which formed there were relatively small (comprising only 0.6% the mass of the disc) and composed largely of compounds with high melting points, such as silicates and metals. These rocky bodies eventually became the terrestrial planets. Farther out, the gravitational effects of Jupiter made it impossible for the protoplanetary objects present to come together, leaving behind the asteroid belt.

Farther out still, beyond the frost line, where more volatile icy compounds could remain solid, Jupiter and Saturn became the gas giants. Uranus and Neptune captured much less material and are known as ice giants because their cores are believed to be made mostly of ices (hydrogen compounds).

Once the young Sun began producing energy, the solar wind (see below) blew the gas and dust in the protoplanetary disk into interstellar space and ended the growth of the planets. T Tauri stars have far stronger stellar winds than more stable, older stars.

[Profpat]

Once the young Sun began producing energy, the solar wind (see below) blew the gas and dust in the protoplanetary disk into interstellar space and ended the growth of the planets

So was our Earth formed before the sun began producing energy?

[Fredrick]

"Whether the planets are different because they started out with being richer in certain elements than the sun, I do not know."

Hi Fredrick;

I do not know either. It seems to be the first 4 planets have the heavier elements, whereas the sun and outer 4 planets have the lighter elements. Since this is the only solar model we have to study it begs the question as to why is this?

Best,

Pat

As you can read in Graybeard's excellent post, the solar system did come about as a single 'entity' formed from a nova (or as Graybeard describes as part of a star cluster that came about from various supernovas located 'nearby').

I like the idea that the Asteroid belt could not even become a planet, and can then be considered a remnant of the first phases of the solar system's formation. Still, the last formation of many craters on the moon occurred around 3.7 billion years ago, and that information gave rise to the idea of a possible explosion of a planet (or as I propose two colliding planets/moon) that was the beginning of the formation of the asteroid belt. The subsequent 'shower' of meteorites was then the last great impact planets and moons had to endure. It has been relatively 'calm' ever since.

In as far as the outer planets are concerned, they too have a rocky core about the size of the inner planets. It is that they collected the liquid gases that made them grow in size. Of course, the inner planets being so close to the sun would not collect those gases for they would be in the zone where it is too warm for these gases to hang on to the planets. The appearance is therefore starkly different, but the process may have produced rather similar rocky planets, while subsequently the liquid gases were collected by the outer planets.

Once the young Sun began producing energy, the solar wind (see below) blew the gas and dust in the protoplanetary disk into interstellar space and ended the growth of the planets

So was our Earth formed before the sun began producing energy?

The Solar System's age is set at about 4.6 billion years old. All matter within the solar system has therefore that age. It is just that once a change has taken place, we tend to count from that moment on as if something totally new has happened. But I bet Graybeard can give you the exact details on when the sun started to produce energy and when earth was about the size it is today. Still, when do we call earth earth? Is it with the first clump or only at the moment the earth has reached its current size? However, for the earth to have formed at all, the process should have been part and parcel of the solar system's formation (including the formation of what would become the sun). Had earth not formed to a certain size and spin its matter would have become part of the sun.