Examination of Our Solar System with the Prime Framework

According to the Prime Framework, any system of sufficient mass will naturally evolve so that one or more 2nd order entities will emerge and accumulate the majority of mass or influence within the system. This occurs as a result of the simple multiplication of elements over time.

Typically, the first entity in such a system will gain an advantage, leading to its expansion. System stability, evidenced by the typical distribution of apparently stable systems across various domains, generally aligns with a distribution between 70%/20%/10% to 80%/20%, while expansion of the 2nd order beyond 80% may result in system destabilization.

Visual representations of a 9-node system in which nodes are connected to their multiples and factors.

In the context of the solar system, gravity serves as the fundamental mechanism for interaction, with the sun as its source. The sun’s gravitational influence extends to all entities within the system, shaping their interactions.

According to the core accretion model of the solar system’s early formation, Jupiter was the first massive body to begin accumulating significant mass, placing it firmly in the 2nd order. The earliest matter to accumulate can be represented numerically by the number 2, with subsequent matter represented by 4, 8, 16, and so on. This matter primarily contributed to the formation of Jupiter, first composing its core and then accumulating into the gas that surrounds it, forming the gas giant we know today. As a result, Jupiter, as the 2nd order entity, comprises approximately 71% of the planetary mass in the solar system, more than twice the mass of all the other planets combined.

Accretion disk, source: Wikipedia.org

The next significant body to accumulate mass was Saturn, which occupies the 3rd order, represented by numbers 3, 6, 9, and so forth. Gravitational interaction between the growing Jupiter and early Saturn gave an ‘advantage’ to Jupiter in mass development, though this advantage was not so extreme as to prevent Saturn from developing. However, because Jupiter occupied the 2nd order, less mass was available for Saturn in the 3rd order, leading to slower growth. Today, in our stable solar system, Saturn accounts for roughly 21% of the planetary mass.

Later in the system’s development, Neptune and Uranus formed, each representing unique Prime orders (5 and 7). However, by this time, most of the available mass had already been absorbed by Jupiter and Saturn in the 2nd and 3rd orders, leaving less for Neptune and Uranus. As a result, these planets collectively gathered only 7% of the available mass.

The remaining orbiting bodies in the solar system comprise a negligible (~1%) amount of mass compared to the first four planets and represent the multiplication of higher-order Prime nodes (such as 11, 13, 17, 19, and beyond). Earth, for example, could be considered a high Prime node, representing significant novelty within the system as the only inner terrestrial planet with surface water, a stable magnetic field, and advanced life.

Planet sizes, source: NASA

The overall distribution of mass in our relatively stable planetary system is approximately 71/21/7, which aligns well with the Prime Framework’s prediction of stable systems. It could also be hypothesized that the injection of significant external matter into the system might push Jupiter beyond its point of stability, leading to a collective destabilization of the system and a potential ‘bursting’ of the planetary ‘bubble.’

55 Cancri e, source: Slate

Interestingly, at least one exoplanetary system resembles our own: the system surrounding 55 Cancri A. This system is believed to be about 10 billion years old, much older than our own, and exhibits an apparent distribution of 76/16/6, with two large gas giants occupying the 2nd and 3rd orders. The Prime orders contain only a very small fraction of the planetary mass. This seems to support the idea that system stability occurs around the 80/20 distribution, although we cannot directly observe the system’s evolution, as astronomical changes occur over billions of years.

Further examination of other exoplanetary systems could provide additional testing grounds for the Prime Framework in the context of planetary mass evolution in star systems. However, discovering exoplanetary systems remains challenging, and our ability to accurately measure those we have found is still developing. As technology advances, we may eventually determine whether the stable distribution of mass in any astronomical system indeed lies within the 80/20 range. Until then, we must focus on systems that are much younger and closer to home.

Coffee Mugs and Question Marks

There’s a glass coffee mug on the table to my right. I bought it from the Dollar General. I think. As in, my brain currently possesses the necessary connections that allow me to ‘remember’ that I bought this mug at the Dollar General, but honestly, I’m only about 95% certain that’s true and I can’t tell you with confidence that the store in question is actually called the Dollar General, which highlights the infallibility of human experience.

So did I buy it from the Dollar General? I don’t have a receipt. There might be security video from the encounter, but it’s a dollar store and this was months ago, so that seems unlikely. Anyone who was at the store at the time of my purchase will have no memory of my presence.

I have no idea what I was wearing. I don’t know what the weather was like. I don’t remember anything else about that particular day, and the only real information I have about the glass in front of me is that I have it. The only ‘evidence’ of its origin is a single bit of data in my head that swears I got it at the Dollar General sometime a few months ago. So did I buy it from the Dollar General? Is there a single, provable history for the origin of this particular glass?

What about the glass? It’s glass. Which was sand. We can prove that the glass was sand by testing the chemical composition of the glass, we might even be able to determine how old the glass is and where the sand used to make the glass came from, but could we ever possibly know anything about the histories of the individual grains of sand used to create the glass?

No. We could not. There is no single, provable history for the materials used to create the glass. At some point during our look through the history of the glass, the picture becomes fuzzy. The data becomes unreachable and thus, irrelevant. Nothing in the future will ever need to know anything about the history of the glass. No quark or molecule or person actually cares about where the sand came from.

As far as the universe is concerned, the glass doesn’t need to have a single history.

The reality of any history appears to be dependent on the existence of evidence for it in the present.

—

Stephen Hawking argued that quantum mechanics prohibits a single consistent history.

“The top-down approach we have described leads to a profoundly different view of cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. Top down cosmology is a framework in which one essentially traces the histories backwards, from a spacelike surface at the present time. The noboundary histories of the universe thus depend on what is being observed, contrary to the usual idea that the universe has a unique, observer independent history.”₁

—

If consistent histories are localized, dependent on the evidence in support of those histories, then the ability to record and transfer that evidence would increase the scope of the locality.

Imagine a local consistent history as a bubble. If you teach the people inside the bubble to speak (and check their histories against one another), the bubble grows. If you give them the internet, the bubble becomes massive, relative to when consistent histories were dependent on two people standing in front of each other and witnessing the same event and then remembering it the same until such time that their subjective memory of the event changes.

—

---

1. Hawking, S. W.; Hertog, Thomas (2006-06-23). “Populating the landscape: A top-down approach”. Physical Review D. 73 (12): 123527.