Home 2
Click here to read The Solar System As A Solution To The Wave Equation (May 03 2024)
We find we there exists a solution to the wave equation for the Solar System, the wave equation that solves the atom, that centers around the Earth, the third planet, where life is abundant. It exists in terms of the Moon and a base unit of 1 second. The Moon seems to be some kind of a Natural yardstick and the old mystery of the Moon perfectly eclipsing the Sun as seen from the Earth because of its size and distance from the Earth, plays a key part in the solution. Though one second developed historically from ancient times from the Babylonians who got it from the Sumerian base 60 sexagesimal counting, it turns out to be a base unit that solves the planets and atoms (the proton) in terms of one another. This has archaeological implications, because it might take us to the realm of theories of Ancient Aliens. In this study we see the Earth/Moon/Sun system is an elegant, dynamic structure, that is complexly functional, which leaves us wondering what kind of forces could be behind its origins in that random chance seems improbable.
The Moon, of the Earth, has long been thought of as not making sense, it is large and massive for a moon of a terrestrial planet while it has a very low density, low mass for its size, when it should be comparable to that of the Earth. When we dropped the launch pods from lunar craft for the Apollo mission on the Moon and measured the seismic activity, it seemed to ring like a bell for an hour, something characteristic of something hollow. Further studies were done by NASA after that in a classified study called Chapel Bell, which remains classified 50 years after we went to the Moon. It has been suggested by some scientists that the Moon would make more sense if it was hollow, and even that it was a hollow spacecraft put there for the purpose of making life more successful on Earth. If it was a craft, and we could enter it and move it to adjust our climate when it is going awry not only from global warming but due to periodic ice ages caused by small cyclical changes in the Earth orbit, that would solve a lot.
Included in this study is modeling not just the Earth/Moon/Sun system but habitable star systems in general in terms of them having an enigmatic moon like we have. While it may not be mainstream science to suggest the Moon of the the Earth is hollow, it is a part of it to suggest that very successful habitable planets would need to have an enigmatic moon like we do. I even find that our description of the atom’s proton in terms of a base unit of one second from which we derive the Earth’s moon, that the equation is based around hydrocarbons, the skeletons of life chemistry.
*******************************************************************************************
In this study we see the Earth/Moon/Sun system is an elegant, dynamic structure, that is complexly functional, which leaves us wondering what kind of forces could be behind its origins, in that random chance seems improbable.
Click here to read Climate and a Quantum Solution to the Planets (April 27 2024)
****************************************************************************************
Do We Know What Conciousness Is
When we claim we know what consciousness is because we can predict its outcome from biochemistry, and further claim we know what biochemistry is, this is not true because we don’t know what chemistry is. It is actually a set of unexplained rules. We are taught in chemistry, for instance, when a metal combines with a non-metal, like aluminum with oxygen, the aluminum will lose three electrons to become positive with a net charge three protons and, the oxygen will gain 2 electrons to become negative with a net charge of 2 electrons. Thus when they combine to make aluminum oxide we have to have two aluminum atoms and three oxygen atoms for it to be neutral, it become Al2O3. But that does not tell us what reality is, chemistry does not do this because to say what the electron is we need to use quantum mechanics, but quantum mechanics tells us we can’t know what the electron is. We describe it with the Schrödinger wave equation, which we wrote down because it works, but we don’t know what it is. It says the electron is a wave because it has wave-like properties, but we don’t know what kind of a wave it is because we cannot see it. To “see” it we have to measure its momentum, which means we have to bounce something off of it, but if we do that it moves away and we cannot see it. This is why we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle: If we know the momentum of an electron, we know nothing of its position, if we know the position we know nothing of its momentum. We need to know both simultaneously to “see” or know reality, but we can’t. The only reason we can see the Moon is that it is so massive when light is bounced off it and comes to our eye giving us its position we don’t change its momentum appreciably enough for it to be a problem. It becomes a problem with atoms because their mass and size is so small. Thus to say we know what reality is from biochemistry is not true, because it deals with particles but particles are described by quantum mechanics. Thus, quantum mechanics is a statistical science and only predicts probabilities of outcomes, and this is when Einstein, who did not like this said, God does not play dice with the Universe. Neils Bohr said, who gave us the Bohr atom in chemistry, said if you don’t realize that everything that makes up reality can’t be considered real, then you have missed the point of quantum mechanics.
****************************************************************************************
My astronomical discoveries "The Earth A Habitable Planet As A Solution To The Wave Equation" have lead me to suggest perhaps something we could call "the Moonmakers", this video here about the Earth being planned may have something to do with it:
****************************************************************************************
Do The Moonmakers Exist And Is The Moon Important?
My paper “The Earth A Habitable Planet As A Solution To The Wave Equation” solves our planetary system with the Schrödinger wave equation. It may even solve what it means to have habitable star systems in general and leads me to consider the possible existence of what we could call “The Moonmakers”.If the Earth Day gets longer, it will have less cooling and get warmer. If the Moon’s orbit gets larger it may be it will less effectively hold the Earth’s tilt to the Sun, and we could lose the seasons and end up with temperature extremes bad for life. It may be that a condition for complex intelligent life on Earth is:
r_planet/r_moon = R_star/R_moon
The more immediate problem before us is catastrophic climate change (global warming). Since the industrial revolution we have greatly increased the amount of the heat retaining gas CO2 in the atmosphere. Parts per billion have gone up from about 200 to 400. Trees make some of this and some of it is necessary, or the Earth would get to cool, but too much, the tipping point is considered 350, and the Earth will warm beyond what is necessary for life to be as successful as it has been. A less immediate problem is the Sun is warming by very small amounts over time. In 2 billion years it would warm to the point that it would boil away the oceans. A star with the mass of our Sun will stay on the main sequence for 10 billion years, after which it will deplete its fuel and and expand beyond Earth orbit and start burning the by-products of its earlier fuel. This should happen in about 5 billion years, at which point it would seem Mars, further away from the Sun than the Earth, might become the habitable planet. A star with half the mass of our Sun, a red dwarf, can last 80 to 100 billion years on the main sequence, longer than the current age of the Universe 13.8 billion years. We have found an Earth sized planet in the habitable zone of such a star, the TOI 700 system, and we expect to find a lot more. Red dwarf stars are the most populous in our galaxy. However, because they are cooler, the habitable zone is closer in, meaning the planets are probably tidally locked with the stars they orbit, meaning their days are the same as their year, just as the day of our moon is the same as its month, these bodies always having the same face toward what they orbit. Thus for a habitable planet around a red dwarf, one side is always extremely hot and the other extremely cold. The habitable region of such a planet would be where night meets day on its surface, the twilight zone.
There is a great mystery surrounding our moon, it has a very low density, meaning it has a low mass for its size, and it is considered very large and massive for the Moon of a terrestrial planet like the Earth, which is more typical of a moon orbiting a gas giant like Jupiter or Saturn.
Because of the strange mass of the Moon and its unusual occurrence around a planet like the Earth, and its unusually nearly perfect circular orbit, it has been suggested by some scientists to be hollow, even a hollow spacecraft, put there to help life by holding the Earth at its tilt to its orbit. When we went to the Moon, NASA dropped the launch stage for the lander on the Moon, and they measured the seismic activity. It rang for an hour like a bell, as if it were hollow. The Earth doesn’t do this, some say because of all the water on its surface dampening it, others say only something hollow could ring like that.
This makes me think of a science fiction short story be Arthur C. Clarke, The Sentinel, which was the precursor to the movie 2001. It had in the first mission to the Moon, two astronauts finding a glistening object atop a mountain on the Moon. They climbed up to it and broke the protection barrier surrounding the sentinel, which was a large monolith monitoring Earth. They said call Earth and tell them to expect visitors. They realized in breaking the seal, it would stop communication of the sentinel with its makers, making them aware that we figured out how to get from Earth to the Moon.
In 2001 the movie large monoliths were put on the Earth and the Moon to monitor human progress. The monolith makers seeded the Universe with life and put monoliths on the planets to monitor the progress of life and to give it evolutionary nudges when needed. Perhaps the Moonmakers, if they exist, if our Moon is really a hollow spacecraft holding the Earth at its tilt to its orbit to make life possible, perhaps they put it there because we are supposed to figure that out, go there, enter the craft and move the Moon when needed to be in an orbit that counters the factors that are not beneficial to life that are underway. Perhaps the Moon is something that can be moved to adjust the climate of the Earth.
Our equation in this paper for the Earth orbit does not depend on the Moon’s distance from the Earth, only its mass. The Moon slows the Earth rotation and this in turn expands the Moon’s orbit, so it is getting larger, the Earth loses energy to the Moon. The Earth day gets longer by 0.0067 hours per million years, and the Moon’s orbit gets 3.78 cm larger per year.
Our wave equation solution may only use the Moon’s mass but the equation for kinetic energy of the Moon to kinetic energy of the Earth times the Earth Day equal to about one second:
(KE_moon/KE_earth)(EarthDay)=1.08 seconds
which we connect with the equation where the proton gives one second:
Equation In Proton Radius and Proton mass gives one second.
This holds for when the Moon was at a distance from the Earth such that it appears the same size as the Sun, which means:
r_planet/r_moon = R_star/R_moon
Which is when the two equations above for one second connect to our wave equation solution to the Earth.KE_planet=(sqrt(n))(R_star/R_moon)(G,M_planet,M_moon,h_star)
The Moon at its inclination to the Earth in its orbit makes life possible here because it holds the Earth at its tilt to its orbit around the Sun allowing for the seasons so the Earth doesn’t get too extremely hot or too extremely cold. We see the Moon may be there for a reason.
********************************************************************************************
If ever there was something to strongly indicate that life on Earth is the result of design by a thinking entity or entities it is that the solution to to the Schrödinger wave equation for atomic orbital systems has a solution for our planetary system as an orbital system that is quantized in terms of the Earth’s Moon and a base unit of 1 second. The Moon has long been thought to not make sense: it has an unusually low density, and unusually large size for a moon of a terrestrial planet. It’s orbit is a nearly perfect circle, and its size is such that as seen from the Earth it near perfectly eclipses the Sun. The Moon makes life on Earth possible, its orbit holds the Earth at its inclination to the Sun in its orbit so as to allow for the seasons and prevent temperature extremes. This unit of one second that is the basis for our quantum mechanical solution of the Earth/Moon/Sun system also describes the proton, the fundamental unit of mass that makes up the elements. The unit of a second was not thought out in terms of the Solar System and proton, but rather came from ancient times. The Ancient Sumerians, who settled down from following the herds and hunting to give us mathematics, writing, agriculture, metallurgy,… divided the motions of the stars due to the Earth’s rotation in base 60 (sexagesimal) as well as the degrees in a circle, and base 60 has many mathematical properties that are convenient and and we see that they describe the properties of Nature. From this the Sumerians gave us the unit of a second and degrees in a circle, and it may be why the unit of a second coincides with the quantization of the Earth/Moon/Sun system and the radius to mass of the proton. The anomalous nature of the Moon has lead some scientists to suggest that it is a hollow, artificial structure, even a spacecraft put there for a reason by forces unknown. Whether it is a hollow artificial structure or not I show in my paper The Earth A Habitable Planet As A Solution To The Wave Equation that it works as some kind of a Natural Yardstick that conveniently solves our solar system as the solution to a wave equation. If ever we wanted to resolve the mystery of life on the Earth, I would think we would want to explore this strange occurrence of the Earth/Moon/Sun system being quantized in terms of the Moon and fundamental base unit of 1 second.
At the end of the paper in section 16.0 we show explicitly that the Solar System is quantized in terms of the Moon and 1 second. The March 23 update shows this better.
****************************************************************************************
As hard as it is to believe it would seem a fringe idea explains the Moon better than the mainstream understanding of orbiting bodies, like accretion, capture, and collision theories. My theory where I solve our solar system as a solution of the Schrödinger wave equation used to solve atoms, is based on the Moon’s mass making it work for the whole solar system nicely. I find both the protons of atoms and the Moon are both mysteriously related to the duration of one second that we use to measure time which was not based on their physics but on the way the ancients developed our calendar. Looking into the Moon further you find the Moon makes no sense, that it is in the reverse of the Earth and all the planets in many ways. The rocks on the surface of the Moon are denser than the rocks below which would better be explained if the Moon was hollow. There is further evidence that the Moon is hollow. Like the rocks on the surface of the Moon are older than the rock below it, and when we went to the Moon and returned to the command module we dropped the lunar lander on the Moon and measured the seismic activity, the result was the it rang like a bell for an hour which again is explained better by a hollow moon, that it reverberates like a bell. Some rocks on the Moon are older than not just the Earth, but than the solar system, and are magnetized yet the Moon doesn’t have a magnetic field. Chromium, Titanium, and Zirconium are abundant on the Moon but not on the Earth, and if the the Moon was hollow these are the metals you would use to reinforce such a structure because they are some of the strongest elements and they resist corrosion. Also the craters formed by meteor impacts on the Moon are all the same depth regardless of their sizes as if there is a resilient shell beneath the surface. The low density of the Moon would also be explained by it being a hollow shell. Two Soviet scientists considered all of this and more said as crazy as it sounds the only logical explanation for the Moon is that is was a hollow space craft that came here in the distant past. One of the strange things is that my solution for the wave equation based on the Moon for the whole solar system is that the Moon perfectly eclipses the Sun as see from the Earth because it is the right size. We know the Moon allows for life on Earth because it holds the Earth at its tilt to its orbit around the Sun allowing for seasons preventing cold or hot temperature extremes. Also many ancient cultures refer to a time when there was not Moon and this seems to place when it appeared anthropologically around 11,500 to 13,000 years ago.
My paper can be read at
Click here to read Life As A Natural Property of the Universe (January 18 2024)
Or downloaded in the download section
****************************************************************************************
Me
Is the observer rendered in simulation theory
Chat GPT
In simulation theory, the idea is that our reality, including ourselves as observers, could be a simulated or artificial construct. The question of whether the observer is "rendered" in simulation theory involves the concept that our consciousness, thoughts, and perceptions could be part of the simulation.
Simulation theory posits that an advanced civilization, possibly far in the future, has created a computer simulation that accurately replicates a reality similar to ours. Within this simulated reality, everything, including the observer (you and me), would be part of the simulated construct.
The nature of consciousness and the observer in simulation theory is a topic of philosophical and scientific debate. Some proponents argue that consciousness itself may be simulated, while others suggest that consciousness is fundamental and cannot be replicated within a simulation. Ultimately, it's a speculative idea without empirical evidence at this point, and various interpretations and hypotheses exist within the context of simulation theory.
ME
are we outside interacting with the simulation
Chat GPT
In the context of simulation theory, the idea that we are "outside" interacting with the simulation refers to the notion that there might be a higher or external reality beyond the simulated construct in which we exist. This higher reality could be inhabited by beings or entities that have created or are overseeing the simulation.
In this scenario, our consciousness and experiences within the simulated world would be part of the simulation, and the entities outside the simulation might have control or influence over the simulated environment. This idea is often associated with the concept of a simulation hypothesis, which suggests that our perceived reality is a computer-generated simulation created by a more advanced civilization.
It's important to note that simulation theory is speculative and lacks empirical evidence. While it can be a fascinating topic for philosophical and theoretical discussions, it is not currently supported by scientific consensus, and alternative explanations for the nature of reality exist.
ME
In simulation theory where to we, the observers, come from
Chat GPT
In simulation theory, the origin of the observers (us) is often attributed to the external reality or the higher-level civilization that supposedly created the simulation. According to this speculative hypothesis, the beings or entities in the external reality are responsible for generating the simulated universe, including its inhabitants and observers.
In this framework, the consciousness, experiences, and perceptions of individuals within the simulation are considered part of the simulated construct. The observers themselves, in this scenario, would not have an independent existence outside the simulation but would be entities within the simulated world.
It's important to emphasize that simulation theory is a speculative concept and currently lacks empirical evidence. The idea raises various philosophical and existential questions, and it is not universally accepted within the scientific community. Different interpretations and variations of simulation theory exist, and the discussion often revolves around the nature of consciousness, reality, and the potential capabilities of a hypothetical advanced civilization creating such a simulation.
ME
what is the reason for a higher intelligence or civilization to create the simulation
Chat GPT
The reasons that might be attributed to a higher intelligence or civilization creating a simulated reality are largely speculative, as simulation theory itself is a concept that currently lacks empirical evidence. However, proponents of simulation theory and related hypotheses have proposed several speculative reasons for why a more advanced civilization might create a simulated universe. Some of these hypothetical motivations include:
Research or Experimentation: The creators of the simulation could be conducting a scientific experiment or research to better understand their own reality or to explore the consequences of different physical laws, scenarios, or evolutionary processes.
Entertainment: The simulation might serve as a form of entertainment for the creators. Much like how we create virtual worlds and simulations for entertainment purposes, a more advanced civilization might create simulated universes as a form of amusement.
Education or Training: The simulation could be designed as a learning environment for the inhabitants within it. The creators may be interested in observing how intelligent beings evolve, learn, and adapt within the simulated environment.
Simulation Hypothesis: The simulated universe might be created to test or validate the hypothesis that a sufficiently advanced civilization could create realistic simulated realities.
Escape or Preservation: The creators may have created the simulation as a means of escape or preservation. Perhaps their own reality faced existential threats, and they sought to create a simulated refuge or backup.
Philosophical Exploration: The creation of a simulated reality could be part of a philosophical or existential exploration by the creators. It might be a way for them to explore questions about consciousness, reality, and the nature of existence.
It's important to note that these reasons are speculative and exist within the realm of philosophical and theoretical discussions. The actual motivations, if any, for creating a simulated universe remain unknown, and the simulation hypothesis is still a topic of debate and exploration rather than an established scientific theory.
ME
I have a mathematical theory that suggests life is a natural property of the universe. That star systems like ours are part of a natural process, so it can have life. Could it be that this theory of mine is part of the program for the simulation in simulation theory, and if so did I come up with theory or was I rendered by the program to formulate the theory?
Chat GPT
The concept you're describing aligns with the idea that life is a natural property of the universe and that certain conditions in star systems like ours lead to the emergence of life. In the context of simulation theory, the question you're asking ventures into the philosophical realm and raises questions about free will, consciousness, and the nature of ideas.
In a simulated reality, if one were to entertain the idea that the simulation includes the generation of theories or ideas, it introduces the notion that the individuals within the simulation, including yourself, might be part of the program. This idea draws parallels with the philosophical concept of determinism, where all events, including thoughts and actions, are predetermined by preceding events.
However, it's essential to emphasize that simulation theory is speculative and lacks empirical evidence. The questions about the origin of ideas, creativity, and consciousness are complex and not definitively answered by simulation theory or any other current scientific framework.
In reality, the development of theories and ideas is a complex interplay of biological, cognitive, environmental, and cultural factors. Even if we were in a simulated reality, the nature of creativity and the emergence of ideas might be designed within the simulation, or it could be a product of the complexity inherent in the simulated universe.
Ultimately, the discussion about whether your theory is part of the program or whether you came up with it involves philosophical considerations and remains open to interpretation. The current state of knowledge doesn't provide a concrete answer to these questions.
****************************************************************************************
For me there are two things we are confronted with, and neither can be explained: One, something can't come from nothing uncaused, yet there is something. Two, something always existed, inconceivable, everything needs a cause, otherwise why is it the way it is. With both One, and Two, cause and effect go out the window, and the human mind is just not capable of having an explanation without cause and effect. Having a god does not explain anything either: Because One, how did he, she, or they come into existence, or two. how could have God always been, how did god get so lucky to be the one who exists first and where did he get this power to create something as immense and complex as the Universe.. I just can't believe I exist, I think something very strange is going on here, it might all be a hallucination. All I can come up with is Descartes: I think, therefore I am. Maybe that is so, but it doesn't explain how I came to exist.If the human mind is honest with itself it is not unreasonable for it to say that it perceives the Universe exists, and as well for it to say existence is impossible. Since these two contradict one another, one has to conclude that the human mind is inherently incapable of understanding reality, that something is very wrong. It may be that the brain, which creates the mind, is not evolved enough to understand reality.
Let us open this up, for there to be something it had to come from nothing uncaused, because every cause needs a cause, yet according to the human mind everything needs and cause, and and because of the this there once had to be nothing, but it is impossible to reason an uncaused cause. Since the mind cannot go beyond this, and there is a universe, the mind is not adequate to make sense.
But if there is a Universe, it may be that it is not what the mind perceives it to be. Reason is a tool for modeling reality and it helps us to survive, but does not tell us what reality is. Mathematics and physics is the ultimate method of reason. Let us look at how they do not tell us what reality is…
What is space and time? We don’t know, it is our starting point and is not described by anything. For instance what is velocity? It is the change in distance with time, meters per second (m/s). Let us write velocity:
Equation 1. v=x/t
But what is the distance x? It is velocity over time, that is how we define it. Let’s write that:
Equation 2. x=vt
Let’s put our value of velocity into equation 2:
x=(x/t)t
We have t cancels with t leaving x=x meaning distance is distance, so we have not said anything about distance (spacial extension in one of the dimensions). We can in fact put all of the relationships between mass, length, and time in any equation in physics and it will return
mass=mass
distance=distance
time=time
So in the end we may have formally written out for instance an equation for gravity that will land us on the Moon, but the equation reduces to saying nothing about what reality actually is. We can theorize what space, mass, and time are, but in the end these theories will result in the same circles as above because they will just create new starting points that need to be explained. Reality is an infinite regress.
If we introduce a God to explain how reality got started from nothing, then we have the problem of how did god get started from nothing. The Universe is impossible, our own existence is impossible, the universe and our existence need causes and those causes need causes, and the causes of those causes need causes and so on in an infinite regress. If the universe, or God had always been there, uncaused for an eternity, that explains nothing because why is it the way it is, why had it always been such that matter has the property of protons that have the masses and sizes they do that make-up everything as opposed to another way, where the universe would fly apart, which it would do if these things were different than they were.
Thus we come to the French Mathematician Rene Descartes, he said “I think, therefore I am”. It seems to me I think, but I can’t explain what I am, that I can’t even explain how I could possibly be, how I could have something from nothing uncaused. Indeed psychiatry does not know what creates the mind because if you trace it back you end-up in paradox. The mind arises from chemistry and neurons firing. But what causes a neuron to fire? The atoms that make-up the neurons are described by quantum mechanics, but as its main founder NIels Bohr said of it, if you haven’t realized that everything that makes-up reality can’t be considered real, you have missed the whole point of quantum mechanics. This is where Einstein, unhappy with the indeterministic natural of reality put forward by quantum mechanics famously said “God doesn’t play dice with the universe”, because we never know when that neuron will fire, there is just a probability, but it can go in a another direction for no discernible reason, this is built into quantum mechanics with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle; we can’t measure reality at the quantum level without affecting the outcome of the experiment, that the observer cannot be separated from the observed. In other words, in looking at the brain and how it works, we look at the chemistry, and to describe the chemistry we have to look at the atoms, which is where we run in to quantum mechanics telling us none of it is real.
Thus if we can’t have an uncaused cause, yet have existence, God has to transcend this and we are left with God is not something the human mind can describe. I think this is why religions put him in terms of something we understand, even though this description does not resolve the paradox. We put him in a beard for wisdom, a staff for knowledge, a robe for universality, But as our existence is inconceivable, so must be the the Nature of God what ever such an entity might be. And why a male? The Torah, from which we get the Old Testament of the Bible originally held that God had a wife, her name was Ashara, but she was eventually written out of the the Torah, but there are a few sects in the world today that still include her. That may be a better symbology because creation is a product of the union of Man and Woman, and it seems she was eventually written out of the Torah as usual, due to politics, to put woman in a lower position to have her subservient. Why one God, why not something like a council, or board of trustees? God or no God, Gods or no Gods, the whole thing, reality, seems simultaneously present yet impossible.
**************************************************************************************
It is difficult to detect planets around stars other than the Sun, because the planets are so small and only shine by reflected light and the stars are so bright that they easily wash them out. However we have done it allot with both the method of transit, and by detecting a wobble in the star from the planet tugging on it, by looking at small doppler shifts in the star due to its motion from the wobble. However, we want to detect Earth-sized planets in the habitable zones of yellow spectral class G stars like our Sun, and it is easiest with large gas giants like Jupiter further from the star and with enough size to make a noticeable drop in the light of the star due to a transit (due to the planet passing in front of the star). For Earth-sized planets we have detected the first, but around a cool, red dwarf spectral class M star. We find a lot of planets around M type stars and this is because they are smaller and fainter meaning a transit is more noticeable because a larger percent of the light is dimmed. As well because these stars are cooler, the habitable zone is closer in, and thus the orbital period is shorter, about a month compared to 365 days. For an orbit of 365 days we would have to measure the star’s brightness for 365 days, and do this about 3 times to verify there is an Earth-sized planet orbiting it. Red dwarf spectral class M stars are the most populous in our galaxy, and they might have life, but one could speculate the conditions would not be very good for complex intelligent life because the planets in their habitable zones are usually probably tidally locked because they are so close in to the star, that due to gravity from the star they end up with a day as long as their year meaning they always have one face to the star like with our moon orbiting the Earth. There would be one-side where it is always daytime and the other side where it is always night, meaning life would more than likely happen on the twilight zone where night meets day. We really want to find Earth-sized planets in the habitable zones of yellow spectral class G stars like our Sun. This occurs where the planet is not too close in or too far out, so that the temperature is right for water to be liquid.
However, I have found a way of theorizing that habitable planets don’t just exist around yellow stars like our Sun, but that they are perhaps a natural property of the Universe. I do this by suggesting star systems mirror the atom and have a solution to the wave equation we use to model the atom. The result is that our solar system for which we have data, is a solution of the wave equation in terms of the protons that make it up. Since protons have the same properties throughout the Universe, I can propose that such habitable star systems may be a property of the Universe. The James Webb telescope is being prepared for the search for Earth-sized planets in the habitable zones of yellow stars like the our Sun, it is even being prepared to try and photograph them (detect them directly) and to do spectroscopy on them to determine the compositions of their atmospheres. So I may have the data I need to see if my findings extend throughout the Universe, at least throughout our our galaxy.
A strange occurrence in my theory is that the equations are based around the duration of 1 second. I say strange because this means the second is a natural unit, but it was not designed as such. It came from ancient times, from the Sumerians who first settled down from hunting with stone spearpoints and invent agriculture, writing, mathematics, and government. We got the 60 minute hour and 60 second minute from them because they chose base 60 counting for their mathematics, probably because it is so evenly divisible by so much. This went to the Babylonians, and then to the Ancient Greeks, who first started cataloging the stars, and measuring the Earth day, lunar month, solar year, and motions of the planets that we use in the western tradition. It is a mystery in archaeology and anthropology, what caused the Sumerians to settle down from hunting with stone spearpoints and to begin smelting metal for tools, and firing clay to make homes, because on an anthropological time-scale it happened almost overnight, so there have been those who have suggested their knowledge was given to them by visitors from space.
The idea that life is part of a cosmic process is not new. The British astronomer Fred Hoyle suggested the idea that in the formation of stars and planets life was seeded throughout the Universe with a common seed in his Panspermia theory. To do this, since life as we know it is based on carbon he had to show how stars make carbon, which he is credited with having discovered in his triple-alpha process. Astrobiology, also called exobiology has been a science for some time now, which treats biology of not just the Earth but as a phenomenon throughout the universe. Now the subject has textbooks and is being included in some astronomy curriculum at universities. We are now a spacefaring civilization, and there is no reason to suggest there are not other spacefaring civilizations in the Universe. We may not be able to travel between the stars yet, but we can travel within our solar system, having sent robotic landers to Mars and having landed men on the Moon. Computers have advanced immensely since the 1950’s and there is no predicting what technological advances this will lead to soon. We might find now that we are going into space that there exists a political system in place among the spacefaring worlds of the stars that we will be asked to join. This subject has been the life work of Neil Freer, who thought we would soon be invited into stellar civilization, and who dealt with the subject of exopolitics.
***********************************************************************************************
Does A Prebiotic Path To Life On Earth Exist
I have waded through the literature and the limiting factor is phosphate compounds.
In order to have life you need the 20 genetically encoded amino acids. DNA and RNA synthesize these into the proteins life needs. Miller and Urey simulated a hypothetical early Earth with the constituents water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen mixing them together in a bottle and passing a current. They produced 11 of the genetically encoded amino acids, but not all of them.
Life also needs DNA and RNA. To have this you need the sugar ribose, phosphates, and the nucleobases adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine, and uracil. Prebiotic paths, paths before life existed, to these nucleobases, exist, but they have to combine with ribose to make nucleosides, and these have to combine with phosphates to make nucleotides. There exist prebiotic paths to nucleotides, but they have to polymerize into long chains and the reactions required to do this use phosphate compounds that we know did not exist on early Earth. This is the main problem in trying to explain life on Earth. Phosphates are rare on Earth, life needs them for nutrients, and they are the limiting factor in Earth ecosystems that determine life density.
One could suggest life arose on planets that were rich in phosphates, evolved into intelligence, and polymerized nucleotides in a laboratory and put them on Earth.
The problem also that arises though, is the sequencing of the nucleobases into a complex set of instructions for synthesizing amino acids into the proteins life needs. We don’t know how such a set of instructions, the genetic code, could evolve into existence.
Further problems arise in the fats, or lipids; they make up a big part of the cells that make make up life that house the DNA and RNA.