The Evidence for and the Theory of Incompleteness

[Profpat]

So we are able to view other solar frameworks. I know we were beginning to detect other planets but I didn't know we could construct solar systems from those observations.

My limited research does have the earth and sun as the approximate same age, a good indication they we were formed from the same star dust. This of course brings up another question, how do they know this? I would have thought the hydrogen and helium, which is substantially the sun, would have been around since the big bang, recycled to form our sun.

Best to all,

Pat

[austintorn@aol.com]

Thanks, Greg. Those are a lot of arrangements of stuff.

…becoming a red giant in about five billion years.

I realize now, that that time is far beyond the sun's usefulness to us, which is why I often see references to only one billions years of use left.

Now I am worried that I just lost four billion years of time!

[Fredrick]

3.6.9 Mid Solar System:


The middle region of the Solar System is home to the gas giants and their planet-sized satellites. Many short period comets, including the centaurs, also lie in this region. It has no traditional name; it is occasionally referred to as the "outer Solar System", although recently that term has been more often applied to the region beyond Neptune. The solid objects in this region are composed of a higher proportion of "ices" (water, ammonia, methane) than the rocky denizens of the inner Solar System.

Wow, Graybeard, that is quite an impressive delivery of information, most of it agreed on by scientists (and me). Thank you also for stating you found the information from other sources, as we are all basically communicating about information we have gleaned from others before us. I will certainly come back to these posts for a quick reference, I can assure you.

Some fun parts are left to discuss among ourselves, found with the details. There is no certainty about the origin of the outer planets as to how exactly they came about. From Wiki: "Jupiter is thought to consist of a dense core with a mixture of elements, a surrounding layer of liquid metallic hydrogen with some helium, and an outer layer predominantly of molecular hydrogen.[27] Beyond this basic outline, there is still considerable uncertainty. The core is often described as rocky, but its detailed composition is unknown, as are the properties of materials at the temperatures and pressures of those depths (see below). In 1997, the existence of the core was suggested by gravitational measurements,[27] indicating a mass of from 12 to 45 times the Earth's mass or roughly 3%–15% of the total mass of Jupiter.[26][29] The presence of a core during at least part of Jupiter's history is suggested by models of planetary formation involving initial formation of a rocky or icy core that is massive enough to collect its bulk of hydrogen and helium from the protosolar nebula. Assuming it did exist, it may have shrunk as convection currents of hot liquid metallic hydrogen mixed with the molten core and carried its contents to higher levels in the planetary interior. A core may now be entirely absent, as gravitational measurements are not yet precise enough to rule that possibility out entirely."

It is with the formation of the outer planets that I believe their actualization was extremely similar to how the inner planets started to come into being. I would then see both classes of inner and outer planets as buckets that were first all filled with an x-amount of dirt, and where only the outer buckets got a lot of water added. Of course I am simplifying what is not really a simple reality, but I would not be surprised if Jupiter has to a very similar extent the same amount of materials earth has, but then not noticeable for our instruments and/or dispersed and barely noticeable in the giant amount of hydrogen and helium. Nevertheless, I would not be surprised if there were indeed some differences between those 'hardcore' elements between earth's and jupiter's initial set up, due to specific location within the original nova nebula. After all, that nova would not have produced a homogenous outcome.

Any further thoughts or information on this, Graybeard, about the level of certainty/uncertainty how the solar system's diversity came about?

[Fredrick]

Ever have I wondered at the propensity of our species to ponder upon matters that have remained elusive, when there are tangible challenges that remain to be undertaken.

Might it be that the energy of the brain and thought processes is a different energy from that which powers the muscles, although acknowledged that the brain co-ordinates and directs our biological form.

We often employ more time and energy in contemplating a simple task, than that which is actually utilized in it's undertaking.

How do we prioritize where we place our energies, be they of the mind or of the physical system? Do we have much input into the choice?

Just my random observation of the day........not meant to impede the discussions under way.

Interesting question, Labelwench, and though I do not claim to have an answer, I would not be surprised if you are pointing to either a very distinct difference in make up of energy or a very distinct difference in use of energy. The brain is vastly diverse in function, and there must therefore be a high level of synergism occurring within the brain. And that is no small potatoes. If we have just a switch that can turn a function on and off, then we have a simple mechanism in which no real synergy is available. Yet add a couple of switches onto a single entity or system, and we have not a single entity with one option anymore. Increasing the number of switches means the number of options what to do moves it away from just the two overall states of on and off. The more options what to do, the more choice there is what to do. So, our brain, with its many switches, is definitively the location where our freedom resides.

I hope you forgive me to lurk back to the empty seat that is mightily important, but where the energy that moves a leg or the energy that moves an eye lid is kind of straight forward, the energetic reality of the brain is not like any kind of straightforwardness (except perhaps conceptually). I would visualize the positions of energetic possibilities within the brain as fully surrounding a conceptually empty location, with each part of the surrounding state capable of moving that empty spot in any which direction we want this empty spot to be moved into. If you prefer to fill that spot with a ball, that is fine too, no problem, for instance, a ball of energy. We can kick the ball in whatever direction in as far as our reality allows us to kick that ball.

I would therefore conclude that our brain both can have the energy to direct our legs to move in a certain direction (the brain controls) and can have the ability to think about moving our legs in a certain direction without moving our legs in that direction (i.e. the brain contemplates). Lets keep it simple and state that legs do not think for themselves, so they are far closer to the on-and-off reality of the simple switch than the brain is. The freedom of the legs is therefore limited, yet in the whole of the brain's complexity, the legs add their part to the freedom of the individual.

As a last conclusion, I would then say that the brain's energy may not be that different from the legs' energy. Yet like jupiter's current state being different from its initial formation, the brain's energy may have evolved to such a distinction that an actual distinction in its energetic make up appears possible. If our instruments were sensitive enough (and perhaps they already are) then they could tell us what kind of energetic result (such as waves) are found within the brain and what kind of energetic results occur in a moving leg or eye lid.

I know this is not a full answer, and prehaps there is no full answer available. Except possibly when we keep it simple: if the body is energy of some kind, then the brain is the logical part of that body of energy and we could view the brain as having specialized energy, but not as having energy that belongs in a special and separate category.

[Fredrick]

So we are able to view other solar frameworks. I know we were beginning to detect other planets but I didn't know we could construct solar systems from those observations.

My limited research does have the earth and sun as the approximate same age, a good indication they we were formed from the same star dust. This of course brings up another question, how do they know this? I would have thought the hydrogen and helium, which is substantially the sun, would have been around since the big bang, recycled to form our sun.

Best to all,

Pat

I think you are correct about this, Pat, and the question how we (they) can know is an interesting one. Meteorites that fell to earth were dated to 4.6 billion years. Moon rocks were dated to more or less that same age. Parts of earth's crust do not make it that far back, but they get pretty close. If I remember correctly, some crusts on earth are 4.2 billion years old, while the number 3.9 billion years sticks in my mind with greater certainty. There are only a few places on earth where the real old surface stuff is found, with some parts of Eastern Canada (like a few hours East of Toronto) being part of that group. So, Canada can claim to be older than the United States.

But did scientist make a final leap and concluded all is 4.6 billion years old while not having conclusive evidence? That is a good question, because the sun moves through a cycle of 11 years, so we cannot find anything older on the sun than 11 years. I guess logic must come to the rescue here, that if we have matter within a single framework (what I call the Solar Framework and for which Graybeard contributed a lot of information), then suggesting a (more or less) singular time frame would make sense. But it was all recycled material indeed.

[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 last framework — the Planetary Framework — and view/discuss its own terms.

What is fascinating about our own planet, when viewed in the larger scheme of things, is that no other level of framework provides a more complex way of spinning than a planet, than earth. Though there is a moon that circles the earth, it always faces earth and so, earth it the smallest entity that spins itself, that circles within the Solar Framework, that circles within the Galactic Frameworks, and that moves straight-outwardly within the Universal Framework. Because of the specific set up, we can state that:

1/ The Planetary Framework contains the highest degree of material spin contained within larger spinning frameworks.



The Planetary Framework can be seen as containing the dual aspect of both being self-engaged (spinning) and being other-engaged or other-focused (on its star and galaxy). Unlike the moon, that is entirely other-focused (it circles around earth, sun, and milky way), our planet also has a spin of its own. It therefore delivers two actions, not one. Without its spin, earth would not provide us nights and days, and we can state that:

2/ The Planetary Framework contains and provides a duality to reality.



With earth having an axis to its spin, we experience peculiarities that differ for each specific location in a time-space perspective. No spatial location on the planet is the same as another, and no single moment is spatially identical to another for at least a year within the Solar Framework. How earth is positioned in its perspective to the sun, and how each location is positioned on that earth will — spatial-geographically — not occur again for an entire year. Even when a planet does not have a tilted axis and would perfectly circle its star, our planet will not be positioned identically at any moment in anyone's lifetime due to the much larger spin of the Galactic Framework. With a spin, a uniqueness of a framework within a larger framework is provided, and we can state that:

3/ The Planetary Framework provides in time a string of specific and unique circumstances per location on a planet.



Because of the fact that each position on this planet is unique, a strong connection must exist with matter in very specific ways, and we can state that:

4/ the individual material reality is fully engaged within the Planetary Framework.



Despite its spin, earth is focused on the sun as well. Our internal focus — strong and independent as it may seem — is therefore always of a limited nature. Individually, the most important focus of them all may be spinning around the Self, yet the pyramid that is always based on the generally possible positions cannot be completed just on a planet. Where the star can be the specific culmination of matter within the Solar Framework, no planet can be considered that culmination within the Planetary Framework. Only collectively do we have a somehow completed outcome, and we can state that:

5/ The Planetary Framework is collectively dominated by an ever-shifting outward focus.



Within this outward focus, those on earth may not consider the Galactic Framework nor the Universal Framework as important or even as truly existing, due to the self-absorbed nature of both the self-centered and the solar-centered realities. Only at night do we experience the stars as important, while in the day time all those stars are overshadowed by our own star. The dueling positions are the self-centered and the near-centered positions, there are no other dueling positions of importance, and we can state that:

6/ The Planetary Framework limits the connection with the overall state of the universe.



There is a unique position available within the Planetary Framework of a complexity and self-engagement not found elsewhere.

When viewing the earth spinning with North in top, we are viewing just one of the two ways to see earth's spin. When placing South in top, the earth spins in the opposite direction. All spots on earth can therefore be divided into two groups with having a spin unlike the spin of the other group. We can still combine these two spins when declaring that earth spins in an easterly direction, yet this requires understanding at the conceptual level, not at the day-to-day level of reality. The explanation is simple, because east is not a grounded entity by itself — it is only grounded as part of the framework of east-west-north-south in which only the north and the south poles can be declared with certainty. So declaring a planet to spin easterly is understandable, but not grounded unless declared from the framework. Similarly, we cannot declare the earth to spin left or right, because that requires appointment of a top, and there are always two positions to choose from. Or, we need to declare earth's spin from within the Solar Framework, but bump into the same problem what side of the sun is tops. We do not have a word that all by itself appoints earth's spin.

Just like driving on the left side of the road may be considered quite similar to driving on the right side of the road from an overall perspective, the individual has no choice but to adapt to the locally preferred reality if it wants to survive for any length of time. Driving on the left side of the road is very detrimental to your health when driving around in a nation where the rules are based on driving on the right side of the road. The choice is a natural given, but the specific outcome or locally preferred dominance is not; not dominance, but the outcome of dominance is a natural given because of having to choose. And we can proclaim the same about the outcomes of male and female, for instance. Being materialized within the larger body of the mother, a choice will and must be made and followed throughout.

It could be possibly that planets with spinning moons exist, I do not know, and there would then be an additional level of a framework that would have its own specific characteristics. Yet taking our situation as our standard provides us four Frameworks: the Planetary Framework, the Solar Framework, the Galactic Framework and the Universal Framework — all having characteristics of their own.

From the functioning of the Planetary Framework, we can find something to say about the Universal Framework because the Planetary Framework is specific and unique in nature. Matter within our universe can also be considered specific and unique, no matter where the matter is found. Each particle of matter is self-based, in a unique position in time and space.

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

[Fredrick]

And though all frameworks were mentioned, there is one that is and isn't a framework at all, though I'll call it a framework:

It is the Framework of Dust.

Of all particles in our universe, dust is most likely the most insignificant subject to consider. Yet dust has properties no other matter has. When the wind blows, dust can be picked up — and when just a tiny breeze blows, dust can still be picked up, and so we can state that:

1/ Dust particles are easily picked up.



Yet when looking for the big things that matter in life, not much attention is given to dust. When the biggest building in the world is built, dust particles are not particularly attracted to it more than anything else. When the sun follows its track in the sky, the dust particle could care less. Similarly in reverse, when the big thing comes along, dust is abandoned by those who thought it was important for a second (think cleaning ladies and gentlemen), dust can quickly be determined as totally not-that-important. A planet may come by and a dust particle in space not directly in its path remains unmoved, even when the planet is dragging an entire moon with it at a far greater distance. The normal things of life seemingly have no influence on dust, and one can say that:

2/ Dust particles are not that much bothered by things around them.



Whether there are rules or not, the dust particles wouldn't know. When something comes by willing to pick them up, they're gone. When other things come by, no matter their weight, but not pick them up, they're still there. The dust particles are not quickly intimidated, and we can say that:

3/ Dust particles do not follow the rules of other matter.

[austintorn@aol.com]

OUR WORLD

Two specs of dust met and stuck together.
This was the beginning of planet Earth.

[Fredrick]

OUR WORLD

Two specs of dust met and stuck together.
This was the beginning of planet Earth.

Haha, I like that, Austin — a good one.

But in this case dust is not necessarily too crazy about other dust either.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Well, the Earth had to begin at some point, with those two specs of "dust", then more and more clumping on.