Genesis Project Is A Different Approach To Science

Genesis Project is not science in the traditional sense. That is, it is not researching how to bit by bit construct a living world, but rather is the search for the secret hidden in nature that instantaneously, and spontaneously brings a world overflowing with life into existence. The reason being is that a living world is what sustains humans. I have already had some success with this approach. See my book Genesis Project 01 at: http://issuu.com/eanbardsley/docs/genesis_project_01 Ian Beardsley September 8, 2011

Chapter 1 The construction of a Genesis Project consists of three parts: 1. Since all life is constructed of the same four molecules carbohydrates, lipids, proteins and nucleotides we must bring about their organization through a process of hyper-evolution, induced evolution, or, in other words create the seed for an induced-hyper-artificial selection. I use the word hyper because these four molecules organized themselves through a process of natural selection over a period of billions of years. We want to plant a seed on a dead planet that triggers the organization of these molecules into the myriad varieties of life, so as to instantly create the ecosystems that make life possible. 2. In order to construct these molecules, we must make sure that the selected dead planet has the substances methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen gas, for it has been shown that combined under energy, these molecules form amino acids which make up the protein molecules listed above in part one. 3. We find a planet that has a primarily silicon crust, like the earth has and if it does not already have water, we can use the method invented by Arthur C. Clarke in 2061 Odyssey Three where a space cowboy hauls comets with his ship, and lets them loose to crash into a dead planet making an impact crater that fills with water from the ice that made up that comet in part, or 4. We find the secret to generating a planet with mainly silicon crust, and water if not in orbit around a main sequence hydrogen-fusing-into-helium star like the sun of our own generation. In the authors point of view, everything is a Genesis Project from cooking in the kitchen to working in the garden, because it is creating the conditions that support life. The author further feels nothing is more important than creating worlds that support life, that have life, because life cannot exist without other forms of life on the same world, and the reason is if we can make planets abundant in the life that supports humans we dont rely on searching for other such worlds that are at un-surmountable distances from us, currently, and more than likely like a needle in a hay-stack, and even then, otherwise occupied by other life. Ian Beardsley September 5, 2011

Chapter 2: The Heart Of Biology Peptides are amino acids bound by a so-called peptide bond. Polypeptides are chains of peptides. They make proteins. The sequence of the amino acids determine the function of a protein, and, the behavior of the amino acid is determined by the functional group attached to the hydrocarbon skeletal chain, or ring. The instructions for the sequence of amino acids in a polypeptide is given by DNA, which is a double helix with paired adenine and thymine and paired guanine and cytosine. There are three pairs per nucleotide and their sequence is called genes. A replica of DNA exists in every cell of an organism; the instructions for each type of cell are determined by which parts of the DNA are turned on and which parts are turned off. Ian Beardsley September 2, 2011

Chapter 3: Ecosystems Bestowing life upon inanimate matter is one matter and is a matter for nuclear chemistry. The naturally occurring elements, such as aluminum, gold, tin, silver, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen are fundamental units defined by the number of subatomic particles that constitute them. They can be combined to make compounds, and the compounds can be taken apart in a chemical reaction by applying heat or mixing them, and once combined the compounds can be reduced to elements, but the reduction stops there; that is the realm of physical chemistry. If one wants to break elements down further, into subatomic particles, which would be protons, electrons and neutrons, or combine protons, electrons, and neutrons into elements such as gold or silver, that is a matter of nuclear chemistry and requires much greater energies. Elements are atoms, and if one wanted to take apart the element silicon, he would have to split the atom into its parts, the protons, electrons and neutrons. This would be the process of fission. If one wanted to then take these subatomic particles and put them together into the element carbon, one would have to perform nuclear fusion, which is the process by which the sun makes energy, only fusing hydrogen into the heavier helium. It takes a great deal of energy for the sun to do this, which is provided by its gravity, which is strong enough to do this because the sun is so massive. We have yet been able to make a tabletop fusion reactor that could do this precisely because the energy required to do it is more than we can currently manage in the laboratory. In a genesis project, taking apart silicon and reorganizing its parts into carbon would be necessary, because dead worlds are often made of silicon, and carbon is needed to make organic compounds. But let us turn our attention away from this aspect of a genesis project and turn our attention to the subject of ecosystems. In order to understand ecosystems we have to understand the most sacred law of physics: conservation of energy. We have to understand that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and that it always goes from a form of usable to unusable. There is a set amount of energy in the universe and as it is used, less energy exists and it can never be replenished, unless energy can be supplied by a source from outside the system one is considering. In the case of the earth that outside source is the sun. It is the primary source that

supplies all life with the energy it needs through the complex cycles that make up our ecosystems. Let us look at what energy is. In physics there are two types of energies: potential and kinetic. Potential energy can be understood like this: If I move a mass m, say a stone, a height h against a gravitational attraction of g it will have a potential energy of the quantity mgh. If I let it fall from the height h, that potential energy will convert itself into kinetic energy, or energy of motion in other words. That energy of motion can be described by the quantity m, of velocity v, and is given by (1/2)mv^2. It would follow that as the stone falls its potential energy decreases because its height decreases, and its kinetic energy increases because it has been falling a longer amount of time. We would conclude, then, that the sum of the kinetic energy and the potential energy equals a constant quantity of energy. That is what is meant by energy is conserved: as kinetic energy is gained potential energy is lost such that the energy of the system is constant. We would write then that: (mgy) + (1/2)mv^2 = C Where y is the height at any given moment and C is a constant. In this case C is mgh the maximum amount of energy or the potential energy before the stone was dropped from a height h. We can the write: (mgy) + (1/2)mv^2 = mgh If the stone was dropped from a height where h is 10 meters, and we know earth gravity is 9.8 m/s^2, and the mass of the stone is 3 kilograms, then mgh = (3)(9.8)(10)= 294 Joules where joules is energy in the kilogrammeters-seconds system. We can then write: (mgy) + (1/2)mv^2 = 294 Joules If we take y to be zero, that is the potential energy has converted completely to kinetic energy, then the term mgy vanishes and we have: (1/2)mv^2 = 294 Joules or v^2 = (2)(294 Joules)/(3 kilograms)= 196 Thus v = 14 meters per second. That is the velocity of a stone dropped from 10 meters when it hits the ground.

The energy that gave the stone this velocity when it hit the ground was determined by how high the person in question lifted the stone against gravity and how massive the stone was. Once it fell the energy was spent and could not be created again unless energy was supplied from outside the system to restore it to its initial height. The energy from outside the system is the energy a person spends in lifting it to a potential. Ecosystems are like that. Ecosystems are communities of life interdependent on one another and their physical environment. Just like the falling stone they have a potential energy that is lost as they carry out their functional parts, and almost all of the energy from outside the ecological system that keeps it going comes from the Sun. Light from the sun is energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation. We know this if we stand in the sun because we feel that it warms us: heat is another form of energy. But it is not energy that animals can use to move about, they require chemical energy, like carbohydrates, or sugars in other words. Light can be converted into chemical energy, just like the potential energy of a stone can be converted into kinetic energy. Light provides the energy for plants to break apart water molecules and carbon dioxide gas that is in the air, and recombine it into a carbohydrate like sugar. No energy is created just switched from the form of radiation to chemical energy, a form of energy that can be stored in the plant as starch and eaten by an animal like a rabbit and that he can use to go about his daily activities. The rabbit can use this energy to make proteins, what we call meat, and it can be eaten by humans to fuel their metabolisms and make them active. The plants use the sugars they made, to fuel their metabolic needs as well, so ultimately all of our energy comes from the sun. Plants in making carbohydrates, or sugars, using energy from the sun, make the oxygen as well that humans need to burn the sugars they eat. The humans, in the process of using the oxygen, exhale carbon dioxide gas that the plants need to carry out the process of making the sugars, and oxygen all animals, including humans, need. We see the sun powers everything. It even powers the evaporation of water, in renewing water in the water cycle, and plants need nitrogen fixing bacteria, single cellular organisms that live in the soil to fix nitrogen from the air so plants can carry out the processes that all of life needs. These are just a few of the elements that make ecosystems work, but we see the entire ecosystem needs to exist for life to exist.

Chapter 4: The Living Cell An Overview One of the things that is common to all life is that it is cellular. Some life is single cellular and other life is multicellular. Bacteria are single cells. Cells are microscopic units full of components just like on a larger scale a human has many components, a heart, a liver, a pancreas, that work together to make the entire body work, each component, or organ, with a different function. Different kinds of cells have different functions. Cells make up tissue as collections of cells, such as cells that make up a heart, or a liver, or a pancreas. There are two kinds of cells, prokaryotic and eukaryotic. Their difference is that prokaryotic cells dont have their nucleus housed by a membrane. Plants and animals are made up of eukaryotic cells. The nucleus of each cell houses DNA (deoxyribose nucleic acid). DNA contains encoded sequences of molecules and is the command center for the synthesis of proteins by ribosomes in the cell, which are surrounded by cytoplasm, a semi fluid that fills the cell. Messenger RNA (mRNA) are molecules that are a mirror image of the DNA in the nucleus. It leaves the nucleus through a pore and specifies the DNA orders for the sequencing of the amino acids in protein synthesis. The components of a cell are called organelles. The spoken of nucleus, and ribosomes are organelles. An important organelle is the mitochondria. The mitochondrion break down food nutrients such as carbohydrates to produce ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate) which carries energy in the cell to synthesize molecules in the cell and cause muscle contraction so animals can move their appendages. All cells reproduce by dividing to make living copies of them selves. While cells are living units, the molecules that make them up are not.

Chapter 5: Design, Synergetics, And Evolution Nature produces life that is extraordinarily well designed for the purpose of functioning optimally to survive. Buckminster Fuller wrote in his book Synergetics: Universe is technology the most comprehensively complex technology. Human organisms are Universes most complex local technologies Humans cannot shrink and return into the womb as yet unfertilized ova. Humanity can only evolve toward cosmic totality, which in turn can only be evolvingly regenerated through new-born humanity, Let us discuss this passage. A fine example of extraordinary design in nature is in the organization of leaves around the stem of a plant. Let us say that so many millions of years ago, perhaps billions of years ago, a plant had the leaf below the top leaf rotated one half of the way around the stem. Let us suppose this pattern continued so that the leaf below the second leaf was rotated one half the way around the stem. That would put it directly below top leaf. That is one half the way around the stem twice is one half plus one half equals one, or one complete rotation around the stem. Let us assume this pattern continued all of the way down the plant stem. It would mean every two leaves down the stem a leaf would be directly below another. That would mean many leaves would have the sunlight to them blocked and this would interfere with the sunlight it needs to do photosynthesis, the process by which a plant uses energy from the sun to make the sugars it needs to sustain itself, and the animals that thrive off of eating those sugars once they are made into starch. This would be an example of poor design. But we can imagine a much better design for leaf organization around a stem. Let us say sometime much later plants came to have their leaves organized around a stem such that they were only rotated one fourth of the way around the stem. This would mean there would be as many as four leaves organized around the stem before one was placed directly below another. This would be much better for the success of the plant, for it could gather more energy in the form of light each day than the plant that had each successive leaf rotated one half of the way around the stem. We can now ask is there an even better scenario than the one-fourth scheme. There does exist an optimal design. The problem is that if the leaves are

always rotated by a fraction that is the ratio of two whole numbers, like 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, and so on, there will always come a point where the pattern repeats itself and a leaf will be placed directly below another. But there exist ratios that are termed in mathematics irrational. These are ratios than cannot be expressed in terms of two whole numbers. Pi is one such number. Where one half is 0.5, and 1/4 is 0.25, an irrational number is written, such as pi: 3.141 Where the three dots indicate the numbers after the decimal go on forever (that is there are an infinite amount of numbers after the decimal). One may ask, how can we ever use the number pi, which is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter? That is if pi has an infinite number of digits, how can one put the number in their calculator if it only holds nine digits? The answer is simply that our mathematical system uses place significant notation, which means each place after the decimal represents the number in that place reduced by a factor of ten from the slot previous to it, so each successive number is less significant. That is in the value 3.141 the first one after the decimal has the value one tenth. The four in the second place after the decimal is four one hundredths. The one in the third place after the decimal is one out of a thousand. So we know pi is very close to three. This is a result of our base 10 counting system. We count to nine then write one-zero as ten, one-one as eleven, one-two as twelve, and so one. If we have three figures, such as in the number 100, then by place significant notation we know that the number one in the first place represents one hundred, the zero in the second place means no tens, and the zero in the third place means no ones. The point we are trying to make is that because pi is irrational, it never divides out; therefore it cannot be written as the ratio of two whole numbers and never repeats. That is why we hear of people through history calculating pi to so many places after the decimal. At first the Ancient Greeks inscribed a regular polygon inside a circle, like a regular hexagon, a six sided figure, each side with straight lines and calculated its perimeter saying it was close to the circumference of a circle, and dividing it by the diameter of a circle to get the first digit of pi, but, to get the next digit, they had to move up to the regular octagon, which had eight sides and was thus closer to the actual circumference of a circle, and the process went on quite tediously until after a week of work they had pi to twenty odd places after the decimal. Today we use such algorithms for computers that might after a year calculate pi to

several million places after the decimal. But the importance of a number that never divides out, that never repeats, that is irrational, where optimal design in nature is concerned is that, to get back to rotating leaves around the stem of a plant, is that if one rotates the leaves around the stem of a plant by a ratio that never divides out, then one leaf never occurs directly below another, and the leaves would then be able to collect the most sunlight possible through out a day. This is in fact the scenario we see today in plant design. Each leaf is rotated from the one above around the stem by a value that cannot repeat, by a ratio that is the most irrational of all ratios, and is therefore the least repetitive, and thereby provides what is called closest packing, The Golden Ratio, which is written: 1.618 Again the dots after the eight mean the numbers after the decimal continue infinitely, but each successive number has less significance than the one before it. But just as 0.25 can be written 1/4, the golden ratio (also called phi) can be written as a finite combination of numbers and operations called closed form. Let us derive the golden ratio in closed form, so that we can understand just what the significance of this value is. We draw a line and divide it into two parts such that one part is longer than the other. We ask just how do we divide the line such the ratio of the whole line divided by the larger part is the same as the larger part divided by the smaller part. That is the whole line of length a is to the larger part of the line b, as the larger part of the line is to the smaller part of the line c. Mathematically, that is to say that:
a b = and a = b + c b c a is the golden ratio b!
ac = b 2

and c = a " b

!
!

a2 a a2 a a2 a 1 5 a( a " b) = b 2 a 2 " ab = b 2 a 2 " ab " b 2 = 0 2 " " 1 = 0 2 " = 1 2 " + = b b b b b b 4 4 !

! !

# a 1 &2 5 % " ( = $ b 2' 4

a 1 5 " = b 2 2 a 5 +1 = b 2

This is the extraordinary design we find in nature. We see such a comprehensively complex technology as such an incredibly successful design and we think that there has to be an intelligent designer behind nature, behind the creation of life, hence the theory of Intelligent Design, but the appearance of intelligent design can be explained by the theory of evolution. Take for example our plant with leaves rotated around it, spiraling down the stem such that each of the leaves receive the most sunlight. Consider that millions of years ago, the leaves spiraled around the plant stem such that each was rotated around the stem by one fourth of a complete circle from the one above it. Then let us say one of the genes by a genetic fluke was born with a mutation that instructed leaves to rotate around the stem in increments of the golden ratio. Let us say that several plants had this mutation, and they bread with one another producing more that did the same. Such plants would receive more sunlight, function better, and have a better chance of surviving than the plants that had their leaves rotated around the stem in increments of one fourth. The latter plants would not be able to compete with the former, the new modified species, in the struggle to survive, would succeed while the former died out. This is the mechanism of evolution that Charles Darwin called Natural Selection. Or let use say that this new species separated from the other, while the other went on its own merry way to survive better in another niche. This would account for the diversification of species. As Charles Darwin wrote: Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according

to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. And what does Fuller mean when he says humans can only evolve towards cosmic totality. Well, if modifications are only selected for, for good design, then the mechanism of natural selection only results in progress over time. As is said in Mexico: Derecha como la fletcha (straight ahead like the arrow) However, natural selection can explain the varieties and modifications of species from one simple form, but how did that first single cell of life form from non-living substances, that gave birth to everything that followed. Just how that happened is not known to science. But science does not claim to be the truth. It is a construct, the best truth for the moment, because it is, as Carl Sagan said self correcting always revising itself as more data comes in, as more hypothesis come in. Just what is meant by a construction? Science is one of many possible constructions. When I talk about energy, or power, or any unit in physics, I am really speaking about a construction of units mass, length and time. Energy we call joules, but that is force times distance, and force is mass times acceleration, where acceleration is distance per time squared. Time squared is multiplying time by itself once. So energy, just as anything, is a particular combination of mass, length, and time. What are mass length and time? Physics is built upon Newton's foundation, which uses: velocity = distance/time which yields: distance = velocity x time time = distance/velocity Mass is inertia, or the ability to resist motion. The more of it, the more it resists motion. So we measure it by its resistance to a force applied. If all concepts in physics, such as impulse, power, force, momentum, and energy can be reduced to different combinations of mass, length, and time then to claim physics puts forward the truth we have to know what mass, length, and time are. But when it gets right down to it, a meter is the length of rod in a glass case in England to which all other rulers are cut, a kilogram is the weight of a sample of lead in a glass case in England to which all weights on a balance are measured, and seconds are defined as so many divisions of the time it takes for the Earth to go around the sun once. All

things stop there, because we dont know anything about what these lengths, masses, and times are, they would require other methods to explain them, and those methods other methods to explain them in an infinite regression. After all, it was the Ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes who said at some point we have to stop arguing or we will argue forever. However, there is some indication that arguments can prove fruitful. In geometry we have definitions such as a line is the shortest distance between two points, axioms which are rules, postulates which are self-evident, and theorems which are proved from postulates, definitions and other theorems. It is in the postulate that geometry has its success. If I can prove a theorem from several postulates then I can say it has some kind of truth, because the postulates on which it is based are self-evident. I mean who would not be satisfied with the postulate if two triangles are the same as a third, then they are the same as one another? But this does not get at the real significance of the meaning physics has. The real purpose of physics, or science in general, is to find unity in nature with the simplest expression. That is if through finding hidden likenesses between all seemingly different things in nature, and representing them all in a simple expression, all of the complexities of the Universe, then suddenly I can hold the entire universe in my head as one simple idea, that I can manipulate to my advantage. Let us take a look at such an achievement in Newtons Universal Law of Gravitation. It would not be of much use if I said the gravity of the moon is proportional to the number of the craters it has, whereas the gravity of the earth is proportional to the number of mountains it has, and the gravity of the sun is determined by how hot it is. But if I said, as Newton said, the force of gravity between any two bodies is directly proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distances between them, then I have one idea that works for all bodies in the universe, whether planets, moons (natural satellites) or suns (stars). He wrote his law as such:
F =G m1m2 r2

Where F is force, m1 is body one, m2 is body 2 and r is their separation.

!

Let us look at the beauty in his reasoning. The force is due to the mass therefore the force of attraction is directly proportional to the masses, but it weakens with distance and by its square since the force is spread out over a greater area with more distance (see the inverse square law). G in the equation is a constant of proportionality determined by experiment. The law has been tested and proven for many instances and has been good enough to land men on the moon, and put satellites in orbit. Wouldnt it be grand if humans found one equation that explained gravity, and electromagnetism in one expression for all instances throughout the universe? In a sense, one law that encompasses everything has been stated. It was stated in 1746 by the French natural philosopher, Maupertuis. He wrote: The laws of movement and of rest deduced from this principle being precisely the same as those observed in nature, we can admire the application of it to all phenomena. The movement of animals, the vegetative growth of plantsare only its consequences; and the spectacle of the universe becomes so much the grander, so much more beautiful, the worthier of its Author, when one knows that a small number of laws, most wisely established, suffice for all movements. We demonstrate the principle of least action in the laws of reflection and refraction. We find that the law of reflection is that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection and that the law of refraction is:
sin " c = sin # v

Where alpha is the angle of incidence of a ray of light, and beta is the angle of refraction and c is the speed of light in air and v is the speed of light in water. By the principle of least action the light will take the path of least distance between A and B off a point P in the case of reflection and it will take the path of least time from A to B in the case of refraction.

Reflection of a ray of light off a mirror

d = d1 + d2 f ( x) = d( x ) ! !

f ( x ) = a 2 + x 2 + b 2 + (c " x ) 2

We take the derivative of f(x) and set it equal to zero to find where the shortest (minimum) path occurs.
a2 + x 2 b 2 + (c " x ) 2 x c"x f '( x ) = " =0 d1 d2 x c"x = d1 d2 cos " = cos # " =# f '( x ) = x + (c " x )( "1)

!
! !

The shortest path from A to B off the mirror (path of least action) is if the angle of incidence equals the angle reflection, which is exactly what happens in experiment.

Refraction of light in water

t( x) =

x 2 + a2 b2 + (s " x)2 + c v dt 2x 2( s " x )( "1) = + dx 2c x 2 + a 2 2v b 2 + ( s " x ) 2

! !

By the principle of least action dt/dx=0:

x (s " x ) = d1 (c ) d2 (v )

sin " sin # = c v

sin " c = sin # v

This is the law of refraction as given by the principle of least action.

!

Unity in nature may be what we seek to discover, but unity in knowledge will serve us better as an approach to science. Edward O. Wilson addresses the concept in his book Consilience, which means unity of knowledge. It is the process by where scientists in different fields move between fields without loss of information. That is an atmospheric scientist may be needed by a biologist, and a biologist may be needed by an atmospheric scientist, that is they may need to collaborate with one another in a single project. The object is for the atmospheric scientist to share his understanding of oxygen as it pertains to the atmosphere with a biologist who understands oxygen in terms of plant photosynthesis, and for the biologist to share his understanding of oxygen as it pertains to photosynthesis with the atmospheric scientist who understands oxygen in terms of the atmosphere, with the goal of this process leading to biology and atmospheric science becoming one field. If all scientists strive to do this, then one day science will become one field and thereby be much more effective. Let us look at why this is. Buckminster Fuller pointed out that when an apple is thrown in a pond, that nature does not call a meeting between departments for the event to use chemistries water, physics wave and the biologists apple. That is a true science cannot consist of specialized fields and truly hope to say anything truly useful about nature, for nature does not know the borders we create. He further tells us that specialization results in disciplines that become inaccessible but to a handful of people and this ultimately alienates the public and is at the root of all war. Of course Fuller had the remedy. He essentially made a reorganization of natural investigation that achieved much more with more with much less. For instance, he took the tetrahedron, or four-faced pyramid and made it the fundamental unit, and showed if it had a volume of one, then the rest of the solids had whole number volumes. I will conclude with design, evolution, unity in knowledge, unity in nature, and philosophy of science are some very connected concepts that are at the crux of human progress.

Chapter 6: Calculating a Functional Star System Entry: Topic: Blue Stars We will find the energy required to move the earth of mass m, from the surface of the sun under its gravity, to its current orbit of one astronomical unit, the sun of mass M. The energy given to move something against gravity is given by the Work, W: Work = W = F ds F is Force. In the case of the sun and earth, we use Newtons Universal Law of Gravity:

GMm r2 We integrate from R to r (from the radius of the sun to the orbit of earth): F= ! W =

# F " dr = $

GMm r

G is the universal constant of gravity.

G = 6.672E-08 in dyn-centimeter squared-per second squared And, M = 1.989E33 grams And m = 5.976E27 grams And R =6.9599E10 centimeters And r = 1.495979E13 centimeters Evaluating the integral for work, W:
GMm = (6.672 E " 08)(1.989 E 33)(5.976 E 27)

Which is equal to 7.93E53

!

(7.93E53)/(6.9599E10) = 1.14E43 ergs (7.93E53)/(1.495979E13) = 5.30E40 ergs 1.14E43 5.30E40 = 1.13E43 ergs 1 erg = 1E-07 joules The final answer is 1.13E36 Joules of energy to move earth from the sun to its orbit.

We now calculate how many times brighter the sun has to be to equal the annual output of energy (luminosity) of what we just calculated, the energy to move the earth from the surface of the sun to its current orbit. Seconds in a year: (365 days)(24 hours)(60 minutes)(60 seconds) = 3.15E7 Solar luminosity is: 3.826E26 J/s (3.826E26 J/s)(3.15E7 s) = 1.21E34 J/yr (1.2E34)x = 1.13E36 J And, x = 94.2 The sun must be 94.2 times as luminous for its annual output in energy to equal the energy required to move the earth from its surface to its current orbit. We calculated that an object has to be about 94 times as luminous as the sun to have an annual output in energy over a year, that equals the energy required to move the earth from the surface of the sun to its orbit, and there are 92 naturally occurring elements as of yet, a number close to the factor of 94. Let us round that luminosity to 94 solar luminosities, and calculate the absolute magnitude of such an object. 2.512 x = 94 x log 2.512 = log 94
!

0.4x = 1.973 x = 4.93 The sun has an absolute magnitude of 4.83 which is about five. The absolute magnitude of our object is 4.93 steps in magnitude brighter than the sun, which is about five magnitudes brighter than the sun. Five steps brighter is five minus five, which gives our object an absolute magnitude of zero. Thus the system of the ancients has a zero magnitude related so elegantly to the number of the naturally occurring elements and the energy required to move the earth from the sun to earth orbit. A zero absolute magnitude object is a star of spectral class B on the main sequence. That is its color is blue.

The habitable zone of a planet is the orbital distance from a star that allows water to exist as a liquid. Since our zero magnitude star is about 94 times more luminous than the sun, as I have calculated it, the habitable zone for a planet around this zero magnitude star is further from it than the earth is from the sun. Luminosity, or the amount of light given off by a star decreases as the square of the distance from the star (see the inverse square law). Since this magnitude zero star is about 94 times brighter than the sun, and there is some play in the habitable zone, we can, for ease of calculation, and elegance, say our star is 100 times more luminous than the sun. Since ten squared is 100 the habitable zone around our blue, spectral class B, zero magnitude star is 10 astronomical units from it. This puts the orbit of a planet around the star at the same distance Saturn is from the sun. The stars on the main sequence form an S shaped curve where luminosity increases with mass. The sun is exactly in the middle of this curve, an average, yellow star of spectral class G. The relationship from a sample of many stars shows that mass, M is related to luminosity, L as follows:
L = M 3.5

! !

We can find the mass of our zero magnitude star with this: 100 = M 3.5 log 100 = 3.5 log M (2)/(3.5) = log M 0.57 = log M
M = 10 0.57 = 3.7

Our zero magnitude, blue, spectral class B star is 3.7 solar masses.
!

The mass of the sun in grams is: 1.989E33 g This means our zero magnitude blue, spectral class B star has a mass of: (1.989E33 g)(3.7 solar masses) = 7.36E33 grams

We can use Keplers third law of planetary motion for circular orbits to calculate the year of a planet in circular orbit around our zero magnitude, spectral class B, blue star. It is:

T = 2"

r3 GM

Where T is the orbital period, or year of the planet in question, and r is its orbital distance from the star, G is the universal constant of gravitation, and M is the mass of the star the body is orbiting.
2" = 2(3.141) = 6.282

r = 10 astronomical units
!

1 astronomical unit is 1.5E13 cm (1.5E13 cm)(10 astronomical units) = (1.5E14 cm)

r 3 = 3.375 E 42

G=6.672E-8 (dyn cm squared)/(g squared)

!

r3 3.375 E 42 = = 6.87E15 GM (6.672 E " 8)(7.36 E 33)

) 6.87 E15 = 8.3E 7 seconds

!
!

(8.3E7 seconds)(6.282) = 5.2E8 seconds (5.2E8 seconds)/(60 seconds) = 8.67E6 minutes (8.67E6 minutes)/(60 minutes) = 1.445E5 hours (1.445E5 hours)/(24 hours) = 6.025E3 days (6.02E3E3 days)/(365.25 days) = 16.48 earth years The orbit of the planet around our zero magnitude, spectral class B, blue star is 16.48 earth years. The closest orbital period to this in our solar system is that of Jupiter at 11.86 years. That of Saturn is 29.5 earth years.

Stars are approximate blackbody radiators, where a blackbody is that which absorbs all incoming radiation, and emits the maximum amount of radiation for its temperature. We ask, according the laws of blackbodies, given the luminosity of an absolute magnitude zero star, and its surface temperature, what is its radius. The color index of a star (B-V) 100 times more luminous than the sun is on an H-R diagram, -0.12, which corresponds to many absolute zero magnitude zero stars, and surface temperature of 13,000 degrees Kelvin. Temperature of a star is related to its power radiated per unit surface by the Stefan-Boltzmann law:
2 R " Ts % " L % 2 =$ ' $ ' Rs # T & # Ls & 1

Where R is the radius of the star, R subscript S is the radius of the sun, T subscript S is the temperature of the sun in degrees Kelvin, T is the temperature of star in degrees Kelvin, L is the luminosity of the star, and L subscript S is the luminosity of the sun. We have:
1

(5800 /13,000) 2 (2.512 4.83 ) 2 =

(0.199)(9.2) = 1.8 solar radii

We have used the temperature of the sun 5800 degrees Kelvin and 4.83 0 = 4.83 where 4.83 is the absolute magnitude of the sun. Our absolute magnitude zero main sequence star is 1.8 times larger than the sun. We have said that a star on the main sequence of 100 solar luminosities is close to an absolute magnitude zero star. Just how close is it? We use: E1/E2 = 2.512^-(0-4.83) = 2.512^4.83 Where E1 is the luminosity of the star, and E2 is the luminosity of the sun, 4.83 is the absolute magnitude of the sun. This gives: E1 = 85.525E2 Or in other words, an absolute magnitude zero star is 85.525 solar luminosities. This is very close to our 100 solar luminosities considering a star can be more than a million solar luminosities

I believe zero magnitude stars on the main sequence are important, if not off the main sequence, in that they are connected to our star, the sun, through the number of naturally occurring elements, the earth orbital period, and the amount of energy it would take to move the earth from the sun to its orbit. Such stars, or plus or minus one magnitude of brightness, are of spectral class A to spectral class B. They are important because the sun is important, as it is a star in which a life bearing planet, the earth, has formed. I believe Saturn is important, because it is at an orbital distance from the sun that is in my projected habitable zone for a zero magnitude star, on the main sequence. Because of this, I feel it is no coincidence that Saturn has rings. What we have here, in this work, is a clue to the secret of origins, in particular to the structure that allows for life. The absolute magnitude of a star is its luminosity at a set distance from the observer, which has been set at 10 parsecs. One parsec is 3.26 light years, where a light year is the distance light travels in one year, or in the time it takes the earth to make one revolution around the sun, in other words. A parsec is also the parallax of a star measured by displacing oneself by an astronomical unit, where an astronomical unit is the average distance of the earth from the sun, in its nearly circular orbit. This corresponds to a parallax angle of one arc second. My belief is if you want to get at what nature is, dont worry about being right on in many aspects of work, because in art a circle unclosed is a circle closed by the concept in art they call closure, a nature of the way the human eye works with the mind. Is what we are seeing here is the rough sketch of nature, the idea. We have said an absolute magnitude zero star has 85.525 solar luminosities and that it is convenient to call it 100 solar luminosities at times. We average the two values: (85.525+100)/2 = 92.7625 There are exactly 92 naturally occurring elements. This average is extremely close to that. We use this fact in our genesis project.

Mathematical Formulae: Appendix 1 Formulas Derived from the Parallelogram Remarks. Squares and rectangles are parallelograms that have four sides the same length, or two sides the same length. We can determine area by measuring it either in unit triangles or unit squares. Both are fine because they both are equal sided, equal angled geometries that tessellate. With unit triangles, the areas of the regular polygons that tessellate have whole number areas. Unit squares are usually chosen to measure area.

Having chosen the unit square with which to measure area, we notice that the area of a rectangle is base times height because the rows determine the amount of columns and the columns determine the amount of rows. Thus for a rectangle we have:

A=bh

Drawing in the diagonal of a rectangle we create two right triangles, that by symmetry are congruent. Each right triangle therefore occupies half the area, and from the above formula we conclude that the area of a right triangle is one half base times height:

A=(1/2)bh

By drawing in the altitude of a triangle, we make two right triangles and applying the above formula we find that it holds for all triangles in general.

We draw a regular hexagon, or any regular polygon, and draw in all of its radii, thus breaking it up into congruent triangles. We draw in the apothem of each triangle, and using our formula for the area of triangles we find that its area is one half apothem times perimeter, where the perimeter is the sum of its sides:

A=(1/2)ap

A circle is a regular polygon with an infinite amount of infitesimal sides. If the sides of a regular polygon are increased indefinitely, the apothem becomes the radius of a circle, and the perimeter becomes the circumference of a circle. Replace a with r, the radius, and p with c, the circumference, and we have the formula for the area of a circle:

A=(1/2)rc

We define the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter as pi. That is pi=c/D. Since the diameter is twice the radius, pi=c/2r. Therefore c=2(pi)r and the equation for the area of a circle becomes:

A=(pi)r^2

(More derived from the parallelogram)

Divide rectangles into four quadrants, and show that

A. (x+a)(x+b)=(x^2)+(a+b)x+ab B. (x+a)(x+a)=(x^2)+2ax+(a^2) A. Gives us a way to factor quadratic expressions. B. Gives us a way to solve quadratic equations. (Notice that the last term is the square of one half the middle coefficient.)

Remember that a square is a special case of a rectangle.

There are four interesting squares to complete.

1) The area of a rectangle is 100. The length is equal to 5 more than the width multiplied by 3. Calculate the width and the length. 2) Solve the general expression for a quadratic equation, a(x^2)+bx+c=0 3) Find the golden ratio, a/b, such that a/b=b/c and a=b+c. 4) The position of a particle is given by x=vt+(1/2)at^2. Find t.

Show that for a right triangle (a^2)=(b^2)+(c^2) where a is the hypotenuse, b and c are legs. It can be done by inscribing a square in a square such that four right triangles are made.

Use the Pythagorean theorem to show that the equation of a circle centered at the origin is given by r^2=x^2+y^2 where r is the radius of the circle and x and y the orthogonal coordinates.

Derive the equation of a straight line: y=mx+b by defining the slope of the line as the change in vertical distance per change in horizontal distance.

Triangles All polygons can be broken up into triangles. Because of that we can use triangles to determine the area of any polygon. Theorems Branch 1 1. If in a triangle a line is drawn parallel to the base, then the lines on both sides of the line are proportional. 2. From (1) we can prove that: If two triangles are mutually equiangular, they are similar.

3. From (2) we can prove that: If in a right triangle a perpendicular is drawn from the base to the right angle, then the two triangles on either side of the perpendicular, are similar to one another and to the whole. 4. From (3) we can prove the Pythagorean theorem. Theorems Branch 2 1. Draw two intersecting lines and show that opposite angles are equal. 2. Draw two parallel lines with one intersecting both. Use the fact that opposite angles are equal to show that alternate interior angles are equal. 3. Inscribe a triangle in two parallel lines such that its base is part of one of the lines and the apex meets with the other. Use the fact that alternate interior angles are equal to show that the sum of the angles in a triangle are two right angles, or 180 degrees. Theorems Branch 3 1. Any triangle can be solved given two sides and the included angle. c^2=a^2+b^2-2abcos(C) 2. Given two angles and a side of a triangle, the other two sides can be found. a/sin(A)=b/sin(B)=c/sin(C) 3.Given two sides and the included angle of a triangle you can find its area, K. K=(1/2)bc(sin(A)) 4.Given three sides of a triangle, the area can be found by using the formulas in (1) and (3). Question: what do parallelograms and triangles have in common? Answer: They can both be used to add vectors.

Trigonometry When a line bisects another so as to form two equal angles on either side, the angles are called right angles. It is customary to divide a circle into 360 equal units called degrees, so that a right angle, one fourth of the way around a circle, is 90 degrees. The angle in radians is the intercepted arc of the circle, divided by its radius, from which we see that in the unit circle 360 degrees is 2(pi)radians, and we can relate degrees to radians as follows: Degrees/180 degrees=Radians/pi radians An angle is merely the measure of separation between two lines that meet at a point. The trigonometric functions are defined as follows: cos x=side adjacent/hypotenuse sin x=side opposite/hypotenuse tan x=side opposite/side adjacent

csc x=1/sin x sec x=1/cos x cot x=1/tan x We consider the square and the triangle, and find with them we can determine the trigonometric function of some important angles. Square (draw in the diagonal): cos 45 degrees =1/sqrt(2)=sqrt(2)/2 Equilateral triangle (draw in the altitude): cos 30 degrees=sqrt(3)/2; cos 60 degrees=1/2 Using the above formula for converting degrees to radians and vice versa:

30 degrees=(pi)/6 radians; 60 degrees=(pi)/3 radians. The regular hexagon and pi

Tessellating equilateral triangles we find we can make a regular hexagon, which also tessellates. Making a regular hexagon like this we find two sides of an equilateral triangle make radii of the regular hexagon, and the remaining side of the equilateral triangle makes a side of the regular hexagon. All of the sides of an equilateral triangle being the same, we can conclude that the regular hexagon has its sides equal in length to its radii. If we inscribe a regular hexagon in a circle, we notice its perimeter is nearly the same as that of the circle, and its radius is the same as that of the circle. If we consider a unit regular hexagon, that is, one with side lengths of one, then its perimeter is six, and its radius is one. Its diameter is therefore two, and six divided by two is three. This is close to the value of pi, clearly, by looking at a regular hexagon inscribed in a circle. The sum of the angles in a polygon Draw a polygon. It need not be regular and can have any number of sides. Draw in the radii. The sum of the angles at the center is four right angles, or 360 degrees. The sum of the angles of all the triangles formed by the sides of the polygon and the radii taken together are the number of sides, n, of the polygon times two right angles, or 180 degrees. The sum of the angles of the polygon are that of the triangles minus the angles at its center, or A, the sum of the angles of the polygon equals n(180 degrees)-360 degrees, or A=180 degrees(n-2) With a rectangular coordinate system you need only two numbers to specify a point, but with a triangular coordinate system --- three axes separated by 120 degrees -- you need three. However, a triangular coordinates system makes use of only 3 directions, whereas a rectangular one makes use of 4. A rectangular coordinate system is optimal in that it can specify a point in the plane with the fewest numbers, and a triangular coordinate system is optimal in that it can specify a point in the plane with the fewest directions for its axes. The rectangular coordinate system is determined by a square and the triangular coordinate system by an equilateral triangle.