We know that the sun is a second-generation star because it contains heavy elements that are beyond it's current stage in the fusion process. There was a previous star that exploded in a supernova, scattering it's component matter across space, and some of this matter fell back together by gravity to form the sun and the planets.
But this brings about some questions.
If the star which preceded the sun exploded in a supernova, why would only some of the matter fall back together to form the sun and the planets? What would determine which matter would fall back, and which wouldn't?
The planets orbit the sun in close to one orbital plane. It is logical that, through gradual collisions and mutual gravitation, one geometric plane for the orbits would predominate. But why was it the orbital plane that it is, which is also the sun's equatorial plane?
Comets, composed of light molecules such as water ice, originated in what I believe was the first of likely three nova that preceded the supernova in the star which preceded the sun. A nova is a blasting away of the outer layers of a large star, while a supernova is the entire star exploding from the center.
Unlike the planets, the orbits of comets are in nowhere near the same geometric plane. Their orbits around the sun can range far above and below the orbital plane of the planets. But this angular difference from the planets in orbital plane never exceeds about 45 degrees. Why is this?
Finally, why are the outer planets of the Solar System, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and, Neptune, so much larger than the inner planets?
But there is a simple answer to these questions.
To understand the arrangement of the Solar System today, we have to understand that the star which preceded the sun was rotating when it underwent both the (at least one) nova and the supernova.
Imagine a sphere rotating as it explodes. All of the pieces of the sphere will be thrown outward by the force of the explosion, but those from around the equatorial plane of the sphere will be thrown further because of the centrifugal force of the sphere's rotation.
This is what happened when the rotating star that preceded the sun exploded as a supernova. The matter along the star's equatorial plane was thrown further out into space, and did not fall back. But the matter from the direction of the star's poles, having much of the force of the explosion directed away at the perpendicular angle of the star's equatorial plane, did fall back together to form the sun and planets.
The orbital plane of the planets today, which is the same as the sun's equatorial plane, is perpendicular to the equatorial plane of the former star which exploded in a supernova, and the polar axis of the former star forms a line across the orbital plane of the planets today.
Imagine an "X", bisected laterally (horizontally) by a straight line that passes through it's center. The lateral straight line is across the orbital plane of the planets, and is the rotational axis of the former star through it's poles. The sun is at the center of the "X".
The "X" divides the space within it into four quadrants. The two lateral (side) quadrants of the "X" is the zone of planes where the orbital planes of comets can be, up to an angle of about 45 degrees from that of the orbital plane of the planets.
The two vertical, top and bottom, quadrants of the "X" are the directions in which the outward force of the supernova explosion were the greatest, due to the added centrifugal force of the star's rotation. A vertical line through the "X", passing through the center, is the equatorial plane of the former star. This is the plane from which the matter of the star was thrown outward by the supernova explosion, combined with the rotational momentum of the star, with such force that it did not fall back together to join the matter of the sun and planets. The lower the latitude of matter on the former star, the closer to the rotating star's equator, the more force it was thrown outward into space with.
The matter that was permanently blasted into space by the supernova, along the former star's equatorial plane, also carried away and comets that may have been in that direction in space, from the nova which preceded the supernova, so that the planes of the orbits of comets today are only within the two lateral quadrants of the "X", at angles of no more than about 45 degrees to that of the plane of the orbits of the planets around the sun. This is because the force of the explosion of the supernova was so much more powerful than that of the likely three nova which preceded it.
The reason that there are planets at all is because heavier matter would be thrown further by the force of the supernova. If you crumple a sheet of paper and get a small stone, and then throw both of them with the same force, the stone will travel further because it has more mass. The planets are of higher average density than the sun, and this is why the matter of the planets did not fall back into the sun.
There is a theory that both the sun and planets originated from a nebula, a cloud of dust and gas in space, that condensed by gravity to form the Solar System. This is known as the Nebular Hypothesis. But there is a basic discrepancy with it. If the sun and planets formed from the same cloud in space, then the rotation of the sun and the orbits of the planets should have the same angular momentum. But the planets actually have much more angular momentum.
I think that my model here is a suitable explanation. With the heavier elements, particularly iron and the silicon that would form the rocks of the planets, being thrown further than the lighter atoms of the sun, particularly hydrogen, and thus having greater angular momentum. This also explains why there is water on earth, which came from comets, but little free hydrogen even though hydrogen is still, by far, the most abundant element in the universe.
2) SUMMARY OF THE CONFIGURATION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM
Put simply, the line extending from the polar axes of the star which exploded in a supernova forms a diameter across what is now the equatorial plane of the sun and the orbital plane of the planets around the sun. The polar axis of the sun is perpendicular to this line, as it is to the orbital plane of the planets around the sun. The orbital planes of the comets around the sun are not necessarily the same as that of the planets, but may vary from it up to about 45 degrees above or below the orbital plane of the planets.
The orbit of Pluto around the sun is eccentric, so that it is sometimes within the orbit of Neptune, and it's orbital plane is also tilted relative to the orbits of the planets. But this can be explained by the collision of a large comet with a rocky or metallic body, likely a moon of Neptune, so that the orbit of Pluto is a synthesis of those two orbits.
The reason for this is that the sun, a second-generation star, and it's planets, are formed from matter only from the polar regions of the previous star that exploded in a supernova. The outward force of the supernova was not equal. There was more force from the equatorial region of the star because the force of the explosion was directed outward, and complemented by, the centrifugal force of the star's rotation. Thus, the rotational plane of the sun and the orbital plane of the planets, is perpendicular to the rotational plane of the previous star which exploded.
The comets, which originated from at least one nova which preceded the final supernova, were more evenly distributed across the sky of the previous star. But those along the equatorial plane of the star, where the outward force of the supernova was greater because it was directed by and complimented by the rotation of the star, would have been blasted away by the matter of the star which came hurling toward them from the explosion of the supernova, while those comets in the polar directions from the star would have remained. This is why the orbits of comets today may not be in the same plane as those of the planets, but the angular difference is never more than about 45 degrees.
There are planets because the heavier matter which would have been at the center of the previous star would have been thrown further than the lighter matter which fell back to form the sun.
Has anyone ever noticed that there is a connection between the following three apparently unrelated facts?
1) The orbit of the moon around the earth is not in exactly the same geometric plane as the orbit of the earth around the sun. There is a difference of about 5 degrees between the two planes. This is why there is not both a lunar and a solar eclipse every month.
2) The rising and setting of the moon, as seen from earth, goes through a cycle of about 18 years.
3) Our galaxy is a barred spiral galaxy, which means that most of it's mass is concentrated along a central plane as it orbits the center of the galaxy. The planets orbit the sun in roughly the same plane but the orbital plane of the planets is not the same as that of the galaxy. There is a difference of about 60 degrees between the two planes. As seen from earth, the center of the galaxy is in the southern stars of the northern hemisphere summer.
Something immediately jumps out. The difference in the orbital planes of about 5 degrees and the cycle of 18 years. 5 degrees x 18 = 90 degrees, which is a right angle.
But if the moon orbits the earth, as the earth orbits the sun, then why would years, which are the duration of the earth's orbit around the sun, be connected to something about the moon which orbits the earth in less than a month? The reason is that, in gravitational terms, the moon is also primarily in orbit around the sun, rather than the earth.
From the moon, the gravity of the sun is more than twice as strong as the gravity of the earth. This means that the earth and moon are really more like "sibling" planets. The moon was once much closer to the earth, when the earth's gravitational pull was stronger than that of the sun, and the legacy of the moon's orbit of those days is preserved by the earth and moon alternating position as both orbit the sun.
We saw this in the posting "The Earth, The Moon And, The Sun", on the physics and astronomy blog www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com and this alternating of position of the earth and moon is what makes it appear that the moon orbits the earth, as both orbit the sun.
But then where does the right angle come from, the 90 degrees, if we just have the earth and moon in orbit around the sun? The answer is simple and it describes why this relationship between the three facts is as it is.
We saw my hypothesis that the axis of rotation of the large star which preceded the sun must have been perpendicular to the present plane of the planetary orbits. We know that the sun is a second-generation star because it contains heavy elements that are beyond it's present stage in the fusion process. The previous star exploded in a supernova and some of the matter fell back together again by gravity to form the sun and the planets.
But that star must have been rotating. When it exploded, the matter near it's equator would have had more outward momentum than that near it's poles. That means that the equatorial matter would have been thrown further out into space than the matter near the star's poles. Since we know that not all of the matter fell back together, because only stars that are much larger than the sun explode in a supernova, it can be presumed that most of the matter that fell back together to form the sun and planets was from that star's polar regions.
If the matter falling back together was concentrated more in one plane, which it would have been because it was mostly the polar matter of the star coming back together from opposite directions, it would have gone into a swirling pattern around that predominant plane. The matter formed the sun and the planets and that predominant plane is not the rotational plane of the sun and the orbital plane of the planets.
But since it was polar material coming back together along what had been the polar axis of the star, that means that the rotational plane of the sun and orbital plane of the planets today must be perpendicular to what had been the equatorial plane of the star.
That is the only place that the right angle could come from if we multiply the about 5 degrees difference between the orbital plane of the moon around the earth and that of the earth around the sun by the 18 year cycle of the moon's rising and setting as seen from earth, and it confirms that this hypothesis of the planetary orbital plane being perpendicular to the equatorial plane of the star that exploded in a supernova.
By the way, we can still access the energy of the supernova explosion of this star more than 4.5 billion years ago. When we use energy that does not directly or indirectly come from the sun, such as nuclear or tidal energy, we are using energy that originated with this supernova.
We can see that the 5 degrees x the 18 year cycle = the 90 degree difference between the equatorial plane of the star that exploded in a supernova and the present orbital plane of the planets. But where do the figures of 5 degrees and 18 years actually come from? That is information that must come from somewhere.
Remember that the plane of the planetary orbits are at an angle of about 60 degrees to the plane of the galaxy. 60 degrees is expressible in thirds, as 2 / 3 of a perpendicular 90 degree angle. If the plane of the planetary orbits are perpendicular to the equatorial plane of the star that exploded in a supernova, that means that the equatorial plane of that star was tilted 30 degrees on the opposite side of the galactic plane. 30 degrees can also be expressed in thirds, as 1 / 3 of a right angle.
As for the perpendicular switch from that star's equatorial plane to the present equatorial plane of the sun and the plane of the planetary orbits, there are only two possibilities, separated by 90 degrees, either 0 degrees or 90 degrees.
So we have two perpendicular possibilities for the plane of the star's and the sun's equators and the plane of the planetary orbits, an angle of the equatorial plane of the star that exploded in a supernova to the plane of the galaxy that is expressible in thirds, and the angle of the sun's equatorial plane and the plane of the planetary orbits to the galactic plane that is expressible in thirds.
1 / 2 x 1 / 3 x 1 / 3 = 1 / 18 or, 2 x 3 x 3 = 18
The length of time of the lunar cycle goes by years because the moon is actually a "sibling" planet of the earth. From the moon, the sun's gravity is more than twice as strong as that of the earth so the orbit of both around the sun is part of the connection. In the same way, all are in orbit around the center of the galaxy so the angle to the galactic plane is also part of the connection.
The 18-year lunar cycle is not exactly 18 years, it is 18.6 years. The 5 degree difference in the planes of the moon's orbit around the earth and the earth's orbit around the sun is not exactly 5 degrees, it is 5.145 degrees. but this lengthening of the two is due to outside gravitational influences.
If we divide 90 degrees by 18, and then multiply by 18.6 we get 93. If we then divide 93 by 5.145 it brings us back to 18. This shows that the increase of the two due to outside gravity is proportional, showing that the two are indeed related.
4) THE SUPERNOVA IN THE CALENDAR
The supernova threw matter across space in three dimensions, and some of the matter fell back together by gravity to form the sun and planets. But the orbital plane of the planets forms a two-dimensional circle. But the matter in three dimensions would contain more information than it would when confined to two dimensions. This information from the reduction in dimensions cannot just be lost, it must show up somewhere. We actually see it every time we look at a calendar.
The matter that was scattered by the supernova interacted, by collision and mutual gravitation, so that one orbital plane around the sun dominated, and the matter coalesced into units, leaving spaces in between. These units, at successive distances from the sun, are what we refer to as planets.
Ice particles around Saturn underwent a similar coalescing process but, within a certain distance from Saturn known as the Roche Limit, the gravity of the planet prevented the ice particles from coalescing into moons, and they remain today as the rings of Saturn. But they did coalesce into a sharply-defined orbital plane so that the rings are not even visible from earth when they are edge-on in our line of sight. But the rings, with gaps in between, represent information that came from the other spatial dimension across which matter was thrown by the supernova.
All of the larger planets of the Solar System have ring systems because the gravity of the planets precludes the particles from coalescing into a single body. In a similar way, the gravity of Jupiter prevents the asteroids from coalescing into a planet, but this shows how the planets and their moons formed from the matter that was scattered by the supernova.
The earth is tilted 23 1/2 degrees to the plane of it's orbit around the sun. This is why we have seasons. But this requires more information than if the earth were not tilted, and the additional information comes from the matter that was scattered over three spatial dimensions by the supernova being compressed into the two-dimensional plane of the earth's orbit when the pieces of matter coming from different directions coalesced to form the earth. But information cannot just be lost and it shows up in the tilt of the earth's axis, which gives us the seasons.
The fact that the number of days does not fit evenly into a year represents more information than if it did. This is also information from the supernova which cannot just be lost.
The orbit of the moon around the earth also does not fit evenly into the year, and this also represents leftover information from the supernova, when it's three dimensions were compressed into the two dimensions of the orbital planes, that cannot just be lost. The orbit of the moon around the earth is actually tilted, at about 5 degrees, relative to the orbit of the earth around the sun which is why there is not both a lunar and a solar eclipse every month, and this represents more information because the information of the supernova which preceded the present Solar System cannot just be lost.
All of this additional information that we can see in a calendar is a legacy of matter scattered across three dimensional space, which coalesced by gravity into the lower-information state of the two-dimensional orbital plane of the planets, but the additional information cannot just be lost. This also shows up in the other planets, such as the varying tilt of Saturn's rings, as seen from earth.
5) WHY DID THE ASTEROIDS NOT FORM A PLANET?
One thing that does not really make sense about our Solar System is how the planets which formed from matter thrown outward by a supernova, the explosion of the large star which preceded the sun, formed the largest of the planets, Jupiter, next to the asteroids which were prevented from joining together to form a planet by the gravity of Jupiter.
If the planets of the Solar System were formed solely by the matter that was thrown outward by the supernova, much of which fell back together to form the sun, which is a second-generation star, then there should not be this arrangement of the largest of the planets, Jupiter actually has more mass than all of the other planets combined, next to a belt of asteroids which are prevented from forming a planet by the gravity of this giant planet. This represents a higher-information state and does not make logical sense, but yet there it is.
Another mystery concerns the two great repositories of comets around the Solar System. There is the Kuiper Belt, close by the outer planets, and then there is the Oort Cloud, much further out.
To answer these questions, let's review the formation of the Solar System. The largest stars eventually explode in a supernova. A star forms when so much matter comes together by mutual gravity that the extreme gravity at the center of the mass is enough to overcome the electron repulsion between atoms and crunch smaller atoms together into larger ones.
But there is less overall energy in the new larger atom than in the total of the smaller ones which were crunched together to form it. This energy inside the atom includes both the binding energy in the nucleus, which overcomes the mutual repulsion of the like-charged protons, and the orbital energy of the electrons which are crunched into protons to form neutrons, because heavier atoms have more neutrons, relative to protons, in the nucleus. The excess energy is released as radiation, which is why stars shine.
As successively heavier elements are crunched together in the fusion process within stars, a greater amount of energy per time is released. A star is an equilibrium between the inward force of gravity and the outward force of the energy being released by the fusion in the center of the star. This will eventually cause a star like the sun to swell into what is known as a "red giant" before the end of it's lifespan. But a larger star, like the one that must have preceded the sun, will actually explode from within.
The explosion of a large star, due to a shift in it's equilibrium, can take either of two forms. A nova, as my understanding of it is, is a blasting off of the outer layers of a star. This is an effort by the star to regain it's equilibrium, as blasting away the outer layers lessens the gravitational pressure on the center of the star, thus slowing the fusion process and decreasing the energy released from the center.
If that does not work, and the increased energy emanating from the fusion at the center of the star overpowers the gravitational attraction that is holding it together, the star simply explodes from the center. This is known as a supernova. A mass of atoms may remain at the center, with the electrons having been crunched into the protons to form neutrons, and this is known as a neutron star, although there is no more fusion so that it is not actually a star.
But the rest of the star's matter is scattered across space. Much of it may fall back together to form a second-generation star. We know that the sun is a second-generation star because we can tell by spectroscopy that it contains heavy elements which are beyond it's current stage in the fusion process, which is crunching four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom. Some of the matter comes together into groups by their mutual gravity, and go into orbit around the new star. These groupings of matter are called planets.
The ordinary fusion process, crunching light atoms into heavier ones, actually only goes as far as iron. This is why iron is so abundant in the inner Solar System. Elements heavier than iron are created only during the relatively brief period that the supernova is actually exploding, some of the energy that is released goes into binding atoms together into still heavier ones and this is the only way that atoms heavier than iron are formed.
The way I see it is that the nova which preceded the supernova also involved a release of energy, although nowhere near as much as the supernova. Where the energy of the supernova created the heaviest elements by forcing smaller atoms together, the lesser energy of the nova joined the smaller atoms in the outer layers of the star that were blasted away into molecules.
The ideal example of this molecular formation is water. The energy of the nova joined atoms of hydrogen and oxygen to form water, the familiar H2O. The energy released by the nova was not enough to force the atoms together into larger atoms, but it did join them together into molecules.
You may notice that, if we burn hydrogen as fuel with oxygen, the two do not automatically react if put together but requires an input of energy, such as a spark. This shows that such an input of energy was needed to form water in the first place, and is came from a nova of the star which preceded the sun. The explosion of the nova also blasted the new molecules far out into space, where it formed comets. The comets are further out from the sun than the planets because they, with the nova, had a higher initial starting point.
But then why are there two distinct spheres of comets and icy spheres around the sun, outside the Solar System? All of the water on earth came from the impacts of comets. The only explanation is that the star which preceded the sun actually underwent three nova before finally exploding in a supernova. The first one threw the new water molecules further out than the second, where the molecules came together by gravity to form comets. The third nova threw light molecules the least distance of all and these became the methane, ammonia and, water of the outer planets.
Water is not the only light molecule that is in abundance in the outer Solar System, and beyond. The four outer planets of the Solar System, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and, Neptune, are largely composed of frozen methane and ammonia. There is little methane and ammonia on earth, and in the inner Solar System, but a great abundance of it as we get further away.
In fact, the planets are of two completely different types. The inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and, Mars are of solid rock and metal. The outer planets also have solid rocky and metallic cores, but are mostly composed of frozen lighter molecules like methane, ammonia and, water.
Jupiter had such a great mass that it's tremendous gravity prevented the asteroids from coagulating into a planet, when it otherwise would have. But if the planets all formed at the same time, then this would not logically have happened. The asteroids would have already been a planet before Jupiter had grown large enough to prevent it from being a planet.
The only way to explain it is that a vast amount of lighter molecules of methane, ammonia and, water were already in space when the rocky and metallic matter from the supernova, that would form the planets, was thrown outward. And then the only way to explain that is for there to have been a third nova, prior to the supernova, which threw the new molecules of methane, ammonia and, more water outward.
The rocky and metallic material, the heavier elements from the supernova that had been nearer to the core of the star, was thrown outward after the third nova and some of it went as far as the zone where the methane, ammonia and water already was. Four planets formed short of this zone and four formed within this zone. The four that formed short of the zone of methane, ammonia and water are today the inner planets. The four that formed within it are today the outer planets.
This is what allowed Jupiter to grow so rapidly, from the abundance of material around it that was already in space, the methane, ammonia and water, that it's gravity was able to prevent the asteroids from even forming a planet at all.
The giant outer planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and, Neptune are at the intersection of the rocky and metallic material thrown outward by the supernova and the lighter molecules of methane and ammonia that were earlier thrown outward by the third nova, which preceded the supernova. This is the only way to explain why Jupiter grew to be so massive that it could stop the asteroids from coming together to form a planet, as Bode's Law predicts that it should be. The bulk of Jupiter's mass was already there.
I see this idea of three nova preceding a supernova as the only way to explain the arrangement of the Solar System.
There has been a lot of news lately about the discovery of other solar systems, planets in orbit around distant stars. We cannot possibly observe these planets directly, the usual method of detection is a slight dimming of the light of a star on a regular basis as a planet in orbit around the star crosses in front of it, relative to our line of vision. The Kepler Spacecraft is continuously searching for such "exoplanets".
But let's consider what these outside solar systems might be like. It seems to be taken for granted that such planets would have water. But we should be aware that just because our Solar System was formed by this process described here, three nova followed by a supernova, it does not mean that other solar systems were formed in the same way.
Obviously, there had to be a supernova and a second-generation star to form a solar system. But that does not necessarily mean that every solar system had three nova during it's formation. There might have been one, there might have been two, or there might have been none.
If there had been none, there would likely be just barren rocky and metallic planets. The more nova there were before the supernova the more lighter molecules, including water, there would likely be.
6) OUR SOLAR SYSTEM IS TOO COMPLEX
Have you ever stopped to think how little sense our Solar System really makes?
We know that it began with the explosion of a large star in a supernova. Some of the matter came back together by gravity to form the sun and planets. The sun has to be such a second-generation star because it contains heavy elements that are beyond it's current stage in the fusion process.
The explosion of a supernova, as powerful as it may be, is relatively simple. But this makes the observed Solar System more complex than it should be. The matter thrown outward by the explosion, that did not escape the area altogether or fall back by gravity to form the sun, should have coalesced into concentric rings that were then formed by gravity into the planets.
The first question that arises is why there should be moons. Why don't the moons just fall in and join the planets? This makes the Solar System more complex than it should be, given the basic simplicity of the supernova explosion.
To add to the complexity that shouldn't be there, given the simplicity of the supernova explosion, why is there the Asteroid Belt? Why didn't the asteroids coalesce by mutual gravity into a planet?
The reason is that the powerful gravity of Jupiter prevented this from happening, and the asteroids remained separate. But that doesn't make sense either, it makes the Solar System more complex than it should be. There was a simple supernova explosion, and it should have resulted in a simple Solar System of planets in concentric orbits.
It seems nearly certain that the two small moons of Mars and the pieces of earth's moon, the Continental Asteroids in my geological theory, also fell inward from the Asteroid Belt. But again this is too complex for the simplicity of a supernova explosion.
There is one obvious explanation.
A star is an equilibrium between the inward force of gravity and the outward force of the energy released by fusion in the star's core. As the fusion of lighter elements proceeds into still heavier elements, the energy released per time increases. This upsets the equilibrium and a star like the sun may swell into a red giant star in it's distant future.
Only the largest stars will explode in a supernova due to the upset in equilibrium. A supernova is a large star exploding from it's center. But there is another way that an unstable star might try to regain stability. A nova is a lesser explosion than a supernova, where only the outer layers of the star are blasted away. The outermost part of the star would consist of lighter atoms.
I am certain that the large star which preceded the sun underwent at least one nova before exploding in a supernova. This explains comets with their highly elliptical orbits. Their matter, light atoms such as form the molecules of ices, were blasted far out into space because they had a higher starting point. The comets were in orbits around the large star that preceded the sun.
When it exploded in the supernova, and some of it's matter fell back together to form the sun, the sun was smaller than the previous star had been. This meant that their orbits had to have less orbital energy. Since the energy of an orbit is the space between it and the orbital center, the orbits of the comets had to contract so that they would cover less space. That is why the orbits of the comets are so elongated today.
I consider it possible that two separate nova resulted in the two main groups of comets, the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt. Probably a third resulted in the methane, ammonia and water that is so abundant in the outer Solar System.
When the supernova happened and the heavier elements were thrown outward from the center of the star, much of it intersected with the lighter matter already out there. This resulted in the formation of the four giant planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and, Neptune.
This explains so much. Jupiter is so massive, actually more so than all of the other planets combined, because it is at the intersection of the heavier elements thrown outward by the supernova and the lighter elements that were already out there.
This is why Jupiter has the powerful gravity that prevented the asteroids from coalescing into a planet and can destabilize their orbits so that they fall inward and become the moons of earth or Mars. This scenario also explains why the giant planets themselves have captured so many objects as moons from higher orbits around the sun, but the moons do not actually impact the planets because that would be creating energy out of nothing.
The abundant methane, ammonia and, water that is part of the outer planets are compounds of light atoms. These were put together into molecules by the energy released by the nova in a similar way that elements heavier than iron were put together by the energy released by a supernova, as the ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron.
But this means that we cannot presume that there is water on exoplanets that are discovered outside the Solar System. The water on earth came from one or more nova that preceded the supernova. If a similar nova sequence did not take place when those planets were formed, then there would be no water.
7) MOONS AND RINGS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM
We can see how the explosion of the star which preceded the sun in a supernova led to the formation of the planets, and the sun as a second-generation star, as well as the comets and icy planetoids in the far outer Solar System.
But there is more to the Solar System than this. All of the planets, other than Mercury and Venus, have moons and the four large outer planets also have rings. This is a higher information state than the planets and the sun alone, and it requires some special explanation.
Plainly and simply, if the Solar System was formed solely from matter that was thrown out by an exploding supernova, there would only be planets and the sun. There would be no comets, no rings around the outer planets, no asteroid belt, and no moons. Since the Solar System contains all of these, that can only mean that there must be more to it's formation than the usual model of just the supernova.
The additional information, and matter, to form the Solar System as we have it today came from the three nova which preceded the supernova.
The light molecules of water, methane and, ammonia were already present in what is now the outer Solar System when the supernova occurred and threw the heavier rocky and metallic matter outward, which coalesced by gravity into the inner planets and the cores of the outer planets.
As the heavier rocky and metallic matter coalesced by gravity to form the cores of the outer planets, the molecules of methane and ammonia that were all around were pulled in also. This accelerated the gravitational formation process of these outer planets so that the giant planet Jupiter formed before the heavier rocky and metallic matter that would have formed a planet in the orbit closer to the sun had a chance to coalesce into a planet, and that rocky and metallic material remains today as the asteroid belt.
Bode's Law, the mathematical relationship between the distances of the planets from the sun, predicts that there should be a planet where the asteroid belt is now located. But the total mass of the asteroids is much less than that of any of the inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and, Mars. That is because the earth's moon came from rocky asteroids that had their orbits disrupted by the gravity of Jupiter and fell inward, toward the Earth. The two small moon of Mars, Phobos and Deimos, also appear to be captured asteroids.
The four outer planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and, Neptune, also formed so quickly from the rocky and metallic core pulling in methane and ammonia from the abundance that was already present in nearby space that this created some special gravitational effects.
Smaller spheres of matter that had formed, both from the rocky and metallic material from the supernova and from frozen methane and ammonia and water, were pulled in toward the new planets but could not actually become part of the planet because this would be breaking a rule of energy conservation, the impact of the collision of the sphere with the new giant planet with strong gravity would create more energy than there was before. As we saw in the compound posting dealing with escape velocities and orbits, "Orbital And Escape Velocities And Impacts From Space", energy can never be created out of nothing and so the sphere goes into orbit around the new planet. This is why the large outer planets each has so many small moons, with new ones still being discovered.
Closer to the large planets of the outer Solar System, the gravity of the planet prevented pieces of ice from coagulating by gravity into spheres, which would become moons, at all and so these small pieces of ice orbit the planets as a ring. The ring system of Saturn is the best-known and the only one readily visible from earth, but all of the outer planets are surrounded by rings.
This arrangement, with the additional information of the moons and the rings of the Solar System, could only have come to be if there had been these three nova preceding the supernova of the star which preceded the sun.
8) IRON AND THE PLANETARY ORBITS
Have you ever wondered why the orbits of the planets in the Solar System are spaced as they are? Each planet has it's own orbit around the sun, but these orbits are unevenly spaced. This is information which must have come from somewhere. There is a formula for the spacing of the orbits of the planets but still, the information must have come from somewhere.
Stars operate by fusing smaller atoms into larger ones. A star begins to shine when enough matter is brought together in space by gravity so that the gravitational force is enough to overcome the electron repulsion between atoms at the center of the mass so that smaller atoms are crunched together into larger ones. The larger atom contains less energy then the total of the smaller ones that went into forming it. The excess energy is released as radiation, and this is why stars shine.
Stars exist as an equilibrium between the inward gravitational force and the outward pressure of the energy from the fusion going on at the core of the star. Smaller atoms, beginning with the lightest element of hydrogen, are fused into successively larger, but fewer, atoms. The element iron is as far as the ordinary fusion process goes. The so-called "atomic number" of iron is 26. This means that an iron atom is defined as one having 26 protons in it's nucleus. There are more neutrons in the nucleus than protons, so that the total number of nucleons in the iron atom, which means both protons and neutrons, is 56.
You may notice that some elements are more common than others. That is because this fusion of lighter elements into heavier ones forms a "factor tree". First hydrogen, with one proton, is fused into helium, which has two protons. If three helium atoms get fused together, it forms an atom of carbon, which has six protons. If four helium atoms get fused together, it forms an atom of oxygen with eight protons.
But as the star uses up light atoms and gets to fusing heavier atoms together, into still heavier ones, the energy being released by the fusion increases, even though the energy released per nucleon decreases. This upsets the equilibrium between the inward force of gravity and the outward force of the energy from fusion.
What happens at this point depends on how large the star is. A star like the sun will swell into what is known as a "red giant". But the largest stars will actually explode, scattering their component matter across space. Much of the matter will fall back together by gravity to form what is known as a second-generation star, and planets typically form around such a second-generation star from the heavier elements that were thrown outward by the explosion.
We know for sure that the sun is such a second-generation star because we can see, by spectroscopy, that it contains a significant amount of heavy elements that are beyond it's present stage in the fusion process. At this stage, the sun operates by fusing four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom and releasing the excess energy as radiation.
This means that every atom in your body, and in the world all around you, was once part of a large star that exploded. We can see how the ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron because of how common it is in the inner Solar System. Mercury contains so much iron that it's nickname is "The Iron Planet". The oxidation of iron is what gives Mars it's rust-like color. Iron is the most common element in the earth, by mass. In the inner Solar System, only the moon lacks a significant amount of iron.
What I mean by the ordinary fusion process is the so-called S-process, for "slow". This is the process that fuses together elements up to iron. Elements heavier than that are only formed during the actual explosion of the star, by the tremendous energy released. This is known as the R-process, for "rapid", and explains why elements that are heavier than iron tend to be exponentially less common then iron and lighter elements.
Some of these heavier elements that consist of lighter atoms that were crunched together by the energy of the R-process during the actual supernova explosion are less-than-stable, and gradually release electromagnetic energy or particles in an effort to gain more stability. This release is known as radioactivity.
Like all elements that were formed by fusion, iron was put together by factors. Just as a number, such as 12, has the factors of 2, 3, 4 and, 6, the factors of iron are the smaller atoms that were crunched together by fusion, in several stages, to form iron with it's 26 protons and 56 overall nucleons. There are several routes by which smaller atoms could be crunched together to form an iron atom.
If we look at the common numerical factors that iron's 26 protons and 56 overall nucleons might have, the most obvious is that 56 = ( 4 x 4 ) + ( 4 x 10 ) and 26 = ( 4 x 4 ) + ( 1 x 10 ). So, if we were going to compare 26 and 56 in terms of their common factors, this would make the most sense because it is the least information state, meaning that it uses the least number of different numbers on each side of the equation.
The number of nucleons in an atom is information. But it is not all of the information that there is. Nucleons, whether protons or neutrons, are each made of three quarks, with two different arrangements of these quarks making either a proton or neutron. An up quark has a charge of + 2 / 3, while a down quark has a charge of - 1 / 3. Two up quarks and a down quark make a proton, with a net charge of +1. Two down quarks and an up quark make a neutron, with a net charge of zero. During fusion and radioactivity, a neutron can be made from a proton, or vice versa, by crunching an electron into a proton or ejecting one from a neutron.
So the star that preceded the sun exploded as a supernova, scattering it's matter across space. Some of it fell back together by gravity to form the sun and planets. There is information in the spacing of the planetary orbits, which could only have somehow come from the supernova. It has been known since the Eighteenth Century that there is a formula for the spacing of the planetary orbits, known as Bode's Law, but even so, according to my theory of how information flows through the universe, the information must have somehow come from the explosion of the supernova.
Suppose that we start with the numbers 0 and 3. The 3 represents the number of quarks that make up a nucleon, either a proton or neutron. The 0 represents the empty space in which both the nucleon and the entire Solar System exists. Remember how the information theory explains distance, whether or not it is empty space, as information.
Since two types of nucleons, protons and neutrons, make up the 56 nucleons in an iron atom, which is as far as the ordinary fusion process goes, let's then continue multiplying our 3 by successive multiples of 2, with each successive product representing the orbit of a planet.
This gives us 0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96, 192.
We still have our 4 and our 10 as described in the factors above. But if we add 4 to each number, we get:
4, 7, 10, 16, 28, 52, 100, 196.
If we then divide each number by our 10, we get:
.4, .7, 1, 1.6, 2.8, 5.2, 10, 19.6
Incredibly, these numbers are just about exactly representative of the relative distances of the planets from the sun, with the 2.8 representing the asteroid belt. Just by chance, the earth's distance from the sun is the 1. We sometimes refer to the average distance of the earth, 93 million miles or 145 million km, from the sun as one Astronomical Unit, or AU.
Another way of looking at it is that if we take out ( 2 x 3 ), multiply it by 10, and subtract 4, we get the 56 nucleons of iron, which is as far as the fusion process went before the supernova.
The supernova is an outward explosion, and thus a dramatic reversal of the inward fusion process. So if we start with the ( 2 x 3 ) and then undertake a mirror image reversal of the operations with the 4 and 10, we would add 4 and then divide by 10, and that would give us the sequence that is just about exactly representative of the distances of the orbits of the planets from the sun.
If the 1 of the earth's average distance from the sun is 93 million miles or 145 million km then the distances from the sun to the other planets would be as follows:
Mercury-37. 2 million miles or 58 million km
Venus-65.1 million miles or 101.5 million km
Mars-148.8 million miles or 232 million km
Center of asteroid belt-260.4 million miles or 406 million km
Jupiter-483 million miles or 754 km
Saturn-930 million miles or 1450 million km
Uranus-1822 million miles or 2842 million km
Considering that the 93 million miles or 145 million km is just an average distance of the earth from the sun, the earth is actually about 91 million miles, or 142 million km, from the sun in January and about 95 million miles, or 148 million km, in June, these figures are amazingly close to the actual distances of the planets from the sun.
The one planet that does not fit this model well is Neptune, the outermost planet after Uranus. The formula predicts that the orbit of Neptune should be 38.8 times as far from the sun as the earth, but it's average distance from the sun is actually only 30.1.
But if we apply this to Pluto, which is no longer considered as a planet, we find that it fits very well.
This formula predicting the orbital distances of planets from the sun has long been known. But it is information, and information must have come from somewhere. My theory of how information flows through the universe shows how it came from the information in the fusion process. After the star exploded, and much of the matter came back together by gravity to form the sun and Solar System, that information could not just be lost. It had to be manifested somehow.
Information and energy is really the same thing, because we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it. This information of the spacing of the planetary orbitals is energy also, the further out a planet orbits the more orbital energy it has.
There has been a lot of effort to find where this formula of the distances of the planets from the sun came from. The answer was right in front of us, we just had to apply this concept of how information flows through the universe, from lowest to highest levels, and how information, like energy, must be manifested and can never be created or destroyed, because information is really the same thing as energy.
If we start with our ( 2 x 3 ), multiply by 10 and then subtract 4, we get the 56 that is the number of nucleons in an iron atom which is the final stage in the fusion process of the large star before it explodes in the supernova which creates the new solar system with the planets.
If we then reverse this, because the outward supernova explosion which resulted in the formation of the planets is a reversal of the inward fusion which formed the iron, we start with the same ( 2 x 3 ) but from there reverse the formula, by adding 4 and dividing by 10, we get the sequence of numbers which describes the spacing of the planetary orbitals from the sun with amazing accuracy.
There is something about the earth and Mars that really gets my attention.
Orbits in the Solar System operate much like an arrangement of gears, except that they operate by gravity rather than by being in direct contact.
Let's start with the earth's orbit around the sun. The orbit is elliptical, with the earth being closest to the sun in January and furthest in June. The northern hemisphere of the earth is heavier than the southern hemisphere because of the mass of the continents, as most of the earth's land area is in it's northern hemisphere.
The earth is tilted on it's axis, relative to the plane of it's orbit around the sun, at an angle of 23 1/2 degrees. The earth's heavier northern hemisphere tilts toward the sun when the earth is furthest from the sun. This provides a kind of mechanical balance to the earth's orbit. The earth's mass, relative to it's orbit around the sun, is more consistent than if the heavier hemisphere tilted toward the sun when the earth is closest to the sun.
Next is the question of why the earth has to be tilted on it's rotational axis, relative to the plane of it's orbit around the sun, at all. We know that the earth's continents have drifted northward. This changed the earth's center of gravity although not, relatively speaking, by much.
But when the earth is in orbit around the sun, the line between the center of mass of the earth and of the sun must remain constant. It cannot just be changed by tectonic movement of the earth's continents, which is driven by the centrifugal force of the earth's rotation.
The way that this line is kept constant is by the earth tilting on it's axis by the 23 1/2 degrees. This is what gives us seasons, summer when our hemisphere is pointing toward the sun and winter when it is facing away.
The Solar System formed when a large star that preceded the sun exploded in a supernova. Only the largest stars explode in a supernova. Some of the matter that was scattered across space fell back together by gravity to form the sun and planets. We know that the sun is such a second-generation star because it already contains heavy elements that are beyond it's current stage in the fusion process.
The heavier matter that did not fall in to become part of the sun fell into groupings to become the planets. Eventually one geometric plane, the sun's equatorial plane, became predominant and this is the general plane in which the planets orbit today, sometimes referred to as the Ecliptic.
But after this plane of the rotation of the planets formed, it took time for all of the matter in orbit around the sun in other geometric planes to consolidate into the predominant orbital plane, the Ecliptic, by the gravity of the planets.
But if we can see how the earth had to tilt on it's axis, as the continents moved technically, so that the line between the centers of gravity of the earth and sun could be maintained, then doesn't it make sense that the center line of the masses of the planets around the sun would also have to be maintained?
What I find to be so interesting about the earth and Mars is that earth's northern hemisphere is heavier, due to the mass of the continents, while Mars' southern hemisphere is heavier, because it's average elevation is 1-3 km higher than it's northern hemisphere.
Presuming that the upper layers of Mars is made of rock that is of roughly the same density as that of the upper layers of rock on earth, the difference in mass between Mars' lighter northern hemisphere and heavier southern hemisphere is just about exactly the same as the difference between earth's heavier northern hemisphere and lighter southern hemisphere.
This is just so interesting. Could it be that it had to turn out like this so that the center line of the mass of the planets in orbit around the sun had to be maintained just as the earth tilted on it's rotational axis when it's continents moved tectonically northward so that the line between the centers of gravity of the earth and the sun would remain constant?
Both the continents on earth and the higher in elevation, and thus heavier, southern hemisphere of Mars are both the results of matter that had been orbiting the sun colliding with the planets. Having the earth's northern hemisphere heavier, while Mars' southern hemisphere is heavier by an approximately equal amount, kept the center line of the mass of the planets in orbit around the sun from changing.
In ways that mean gravity is capable of operating with greater intricacy than we usually give it credit for, the earth's continents moved tectonically northward, driven by the spin of the earth, so that the difference in mass between earth's northern and southern hemispheres was equal, but opposite, to the corresponding difference on Mars.
This maintained the center line of the masses of the planets in orbit around the sun, which could not just be changed from within, without input from outside. But it would have changed the line between the centers of mass of the sun and the earth. To avoid this, the earth tilted on it's axis by the 23 1/2 degrees.
To achieve further balance of mass, the earth's heavier northern hemisphere leans toward the sun when the earth is furthest from the sun, and the lighter southern hemisphere leans toward the sun when the earth is closest to the sun.
The reason that Mars' southern hemisphere is heavier than it's northern hemisphere is also due to balance. A planet's axis of rotation is defined as north-south. The rotation of a spherical body has to be balanced. If one hemisphere of the planet is significantly heavier than the other, it has to be either the northern or southern hemisphere, in order to keep the rotation balanced. It cannot be the eastern or western hemisphere, as this will unbalance the rotation. The planet will shift so that the heavier hemisphere is either the northern or southern.
Another way we can see how important balance is in the Solar System is Kepler's Law that a line between the center of a planet and the center of the sun must sweep over equal areas of space in equal periods of time.
The planetary orbits are elliptical, rather than circular. It has to be this way because planets formed by smaller orbiting pieces collecting together by gravity. The orbits of the pieces that were closer to the sun, as well as those that were further, have to still be maintained and the way this is done is for the planet to be in an elliptical orbit. But the planet moves faster in orbit when it is closer to the sun so that balance is maintained as the line between the centers of the planet and the sun sweep over equal areas of space in equal periods of time.
So we can see how important balance is in the operation of the Solar System. The way it seems is that gravity is capable of more intricacy than is generally supposed in maintaining that balance.
The rotation of the earth caused it's continents to move tectonically northward in a way that counterbalanced the difference in mass between Mars' lighter northern and heavier southern hemispheres by making the earth's northern hemisphere heavier by just about exactly the same amount that Mars' southern hemisphere is heavier.
This maintains the center line of the orbital plane of the planets around the sun. But it couldn't possibly have come about by the slight direct gravity between the earth and Mars. The gravitational influence would have had to go through the sun.
This can only mean that gravity, the simple attractive force that dominates the universe on a large scale, must be capable of far greater intricacy than it is generally given credit for. We can already see this intricacy in the operation of Lagrangian Points but it goes well beyond that.
10) THE VITAL IMPORTANCE OF SUPERNOVA IN EXOPLANETS
There has been a lot in the news lately about more exoplanets being discovered. These are planets in other solar systems.
It seems to be taken for granted by some that there will automatically be water wherever a solar system forms. But this is not necessarily the case. It all depends on the supernova that formed the solar system.
All solar systems, meaning planets in orbit around a star, form because of the explosion of a star in a supernova. A star forms when enough matter comes together by gravity to overcome the electron repulsion that keeps atoms apart. Smaller atoms are crunched together into larger ones. The new larger atom has less overall internal energy than the smaller atoms which were crunched together to form it. This leftover energy is released as radiation and is why stars shine.
The star is an equilibrium between the inward force of gravity and the outward pressure of this energy released by fusion. As time goes on successively larger atoms are fused together in the center of the star. This upsets the equilibrium with more outward pressure.
The new imbalance in the equilibrium may cause the star to blast off it's outer layers, which would reduce the gravitational pressure driving fusion and thus restore the original equilibrium, or even to explode altogether from the center. This occurs only in the largest stars, with the greatest inward gravitational pressure. I define a nova as a blasting off of the outer layers of the star and a supernova as the star exploding from the center.
Our Solar System formed when a large star exploded in a supernova. Some of it's matter fell back together by gravity to form our sun and planets, but the sun is nowhere near as large as the previous star that exploded. We know that the sun is such a second-generation star because it contains heavy elements that are beyond it's current stage in the fusion process.
All energy on earth that is not solar came from this exploded star. Tidal energy is from the energy of the mass that was thrown outward by the supernova and coalesced by gravity to form the planets and moon. Nuclear energy comes from the heavy unstable elements that were put together from lighter atoms by the energy released by the supernova, this applies to nuclear fission and the radioactive decay that produces heat inside the earth but not to fusion energy generated on earth. Hydrogen on earth is usually diatomic, two atoms bonded together, when we burn hydrogen as fuel we are releasing the energy of that bond that was put together by a nova from the previous star that ultimately exploded in a supernova. Furthermore this previous star is so important to us because every atom in our bodies was once part of it.
Ordinary fusion of atoms in stars only goes as far as iron, because it takes more energy to break an iron atom apart than is released when it fuses. This is known as the S-process of fusion, for "slow". There is also the R-process, for "rapid".
Fusion by the R-process only takes place during the brief time that the star is actually exploding in the supernova, by the tremendous energy being released. The R-process is how all elements heavier than iron form. This is why iron and lighter elements are exponentially more common than the heavier elements. Some of the R-process elements are less-than-stable and gradually give off particles or radiation in order to reach a more stable condition. These emissions are known as radioactivity.
My theory is that the previous star underwent three nova, blasting off of the outer layers, before exploding from the center as a supernova. But I am absolutely certain that it underwent at least one nova, and more likely three.
A nova is a much-less powerful explosion than a supernova. A supernova releases such energy that it actually fuses atoms together into heavy elements that wouldn't have formed otherwise. A nova, in contrast, fuses the lighter atoms that are naturally found in a star's outer layers into molecules. This is how common light molecules like water, ammonia, methane and, diatomic hydrogen form.
This is why I conclude that there were three nova in the life of the previous star, before it finally exploded from the center in a supernova. Comets are formed of ices of light molecules, including water. The water on earth came from one or more comets. This explains why our Solar System has two distinct zones of comets, the far distant Oort Cloud and the nearer Kuiper Belt. The matter thrown out by the first nova would have been thrown further because it had a higher starting point. I conclude that the third nova threw the light molecules outward that formed the ammonia and methane that is so abundant in the outer planets of our Solar System.
Finally the previous star exploded from the center as a supernova. Some of the matter fell back together by gravity to form the sun. Some of the heavier rocky and metallic material remained in orbit around the sun. This is what forms the inner planets and the cores of the outer planets.
So what about the exoplanets, in orbits around distant stars, that are being discovered? We know that the only way that solar systems form, including ours, is from a large star that exploded in a supernova. But we see here that there was most likely three nova before our previous star exploded in the supernova that formed our Solar System. The supernovas that formed other solar systems may have unfolded quite differently than ours, and that is what I see as so important here.
We seem to take it for granted that there must be water in these faraway solar systems. But that may not be so. I see water molecules being put together by the energy released by a nova which preceded our previous star's supernova. What if a solar system formed by a star that just exploded in a supernova, without any preceding nova? Water would likely not exist.
Even if there were one or more nova preceding the supernova the molecules that it's energy put together from the light atoms in the outer layers of the star may not have come together at all like it did in our Solar System. In our case, large amounts of water, ammonia and, methane were formed by nova. But completely different molecules may have formed in other solar systems, even if the formation process was similar.
One thing that we can be reasonably sure of is that, if we find large planets of relatively low density, there surely was one or more nova before the supernova in the previous star of that solar system. A nova is what forms the molecules from light atoms that would produce such a low-density planet. A Neptune-like exoplanet was recently in the news and we can be sure that nova were necessary for it's formation.
The major components of our atmosphere are nitrogen and oxygen, both of which are diatomic or consisting of two atoms bonded together. Having two atoms bonded together makes the nitrogen and oxygen heavier than it would be otherwise. There is energy in this diatomic bond and it comes from one of the nova that preceded the supernova that formed our Solar System. Hydrogen is also diatomic, for the same reason, and when we burn it as fuel we are releasing the energy of that nova. Without the weight of the two atoms together the earth's gravity may not be strong enough to hold onto it and we might not have our atmosphere as we know it.
Aside from nova the necessary supernova to form a solar system may not have turned out exactly the same as the one that formed our Solar System. In our Periodic Table there are 92 naturally-occurring elements, number 92 being uranium. But there may be more or fewer elements in other solar systems, although their relative proportions would likely be similar to ours. Scientists can create a number of elements in the laboratory that are heavier than uranium and do not occur naturally in our Solar System, even if they are radioactive and may only last for a fraction of a second. As for isotopes of the elements, the possibly varying number of neutrons in the same element, each element would likely have much the same isotopes although their relative proportions may be much different.
The most important factor in how faraway solar systems may differ from ours is how the supernova that must have formed it played out, and were there nova, a blasting off of the outer layers of the star, that preceded the supernova? If the exploding star that formed our Solar System had just been a supernova, with no preceding nova, the planets would likely be rocky and metallic, like the inner planets, without the large amounts of ammonia and methane that make up most of the giant outer planets.
I concluded that salt, sodium chloride, is another light molecule that was formed by a nova in the previous star. That is why salt and water are always associated together on earth, the two arrived on earth in the same comet.
