Because of the recent measurements done by Rosetta Mission on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, and a paper released a month ago; it is in vogue to debate the origin of Earth's water supply. Here is the new article:
http://www.sciencemag.org/…/early/2014/12/09/science.1261952
Abstract: The provenance of water and organic compounds on the Earth and other terrestrial planets has been discussed for a long time without reaching a consensus. One of the best means to distinguish between different scenarios is by determining the D/H ratios in the reservoirs for comets and the Earth’s oceans. Here we report the direct in situ measurement of the D/H ratio in the Jupiter family comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by the ROSINA mass spectrometer aboard ESA’s Rosetta spacecraft, which is found to be (5.3 ± 0.7) × 10−4, that is, ~3 times the terrestrial value. Previous cometary measurements and our new finding suggest a wide range of D/H ratios in the water within Jupiter family objects and preclude the idea that this reservoir is solely composed of Earth ocean-like water.
The pop views seem to be that the water supply came via comets and asteroids, or the Sun. The measurements done on the comets seem to challenge these ideas.
Personally, I hold to assumption that Earth and perhaps most planets and moons are old dark stars, older than the currently accepted age of the Universe. They evolve from an active fusing phase of development. Over time the star sheds atoms, stops fusing and changes. This is not a popular assumption to hold to and I've already been ridiculed by a friend for holding to this. However a few thinkers have come to this idea and although I don't necessarily agree with all of their ideas, I have a listed references and quotes here in the past.
The Earth's water supply could have been homegrown, that is chemically synthesized at a certain phase of Earth's stellar evolution. Or perhaps the water supply could have been supplemented to the Earth prior to the succession of locations it assumed close to the Sun; prior to when it got locked into a gravitational relationship with the Sun (in an inverse square regime). In other words the Earth could have marched around the galaxy as a rogue star/planet, and perhaps taken in water from interstellar clouds. Or perhaps Earth could have crossed close to other stars such as TW Hydrae (a young star erupting H2O) prior to coming close to the Sun. Prior to coming close to the Sun, I think the Earth was froze over; a hodgepodge of chemicals such as water, methane, ammonia, CO2 (dry ice), carbon monoxide and other volatiles. Underneath the ice was probably a liquid water supply with more chemicals and rock. Earth would have appeared as an astonishing desert. An ice world, like Hoth from Star Wars. And the moon? Well Earth and Moon could be a binary star system. The Moon looks older than the Earth to me. Heck some Moon rocks were radiometrically dated around 12 billion years. They took a mean date. Jupiter and her moons were once a star system that crossed paths with the Sun and so on.
Now this view is not the popular or accepted view. People accustomed to nebular hypothesis and Big-Bang Universe would heavily criticize these ideas. But you know I would just shrug my shoulders. If you invoke Big-Bang I would laugh because its assumptions are ridiculous. If you invoke radiometric dating, I would say time is subjective, observer dependent. Atoms do not remember when to decay in accord with your predefined contexts. Besides how would one date lava? And decay seems random. Who is to say that decay rates would not vary pending an astronomical object's location or an atom's location? We all agree the Sun has some pretty profound effects on the Earth and her atoms. And make manifest to me the decay process. Is it billiard balls moving in and out of the atom? Are you going to invoke the mystical binding energy, again? Radiometric dating is sophisticated guesswork. If you invoke supernova theory, I will say if every star goes supernova why are there not more observed? And nebular hypothesis well I have a collection of criticisms of that bloated assumption filled with ad hoc.
And as far as current astrophysical evidence suggests we have just discovered thousands of so called exoplanets. Some of these planets are in star systems that defy nebular hypothesis. In addition there are rogue planets and moons not in inverse square gravitational relationships with younger stars. So I hold to the idea that a star is a young planet, and a planet is an old star. I think this is the future. And it is fascinating because there could be so many variables. But think of it. We could be living on something that was once a star.
Modern inertial mass is a seminal concept in Newton's work. Inertial mass refers to a static concept. A picture. Inertial mass refers to an object's resistance to being pushed and pulled by other objects in the vicinity. In this context we could replace the word 'object' with 'atom' or 'proton'. Then we have to ask ourselves how is it that this object, this atom, resists being pushed or pulled by other objects in the vicinity? The reasonable explanation seems that an atom's resistance originates in all the atoms of the Universe gently nudging that atom from all directions . . . toward them. AS WELL that sample atom gently nudging on all atoms of the Universe toward it. All the atoms of the Universe are in a constant tension with one another. When an atom assumes a succession of locations all atoms of the Universe gently nudge on it and it gently nudges on all atoms.
When a proton (or H atom) moves in a given direction by the proton's in the vicinity, for example in what we call gravity, the same is tugged in the opposite direction by all other atoms of the Universe. Inertial mass is always in the direction(s) opposite the net effect of gravity. It seems very reasonable to assume that all the atoms of the Universe are physically connected by some sort of fundamental object that is inherent to the atoms, to the very protons themselves . . . ALL OF THEM.
Newton came very close to this conclusion when since he thought that the resistive forces were innate to the object. He uses the expression "innate force possessed by an object" or "innate resistive forces". What he failed to do is explain HOW or WHY these resistive forces are innate to all objects, and in our modern context all atoms. He did not understand the Form of an atom. An atom derives, or assumes it's Form from the same object that performs the work of light, gravity and inertia to and from all atoms. We could call this a double helix EM Thread, and there is a grand scope of implications that such an assumption entails. The object that performs the work of light to and from all atoms has wholly unique properties (such as the ability to superpose, overlap, or intersect without disturbance up to some critical anomaly or density). These properties are assumed by the atom itself for the atom seems to assume its Form from the same object. This is one of the reason's why we have seemingly inexplicable anomalies at the quantum scale.
When two objects, say stars, like the Sun and the Earth come close, the number of these double helix thread connections INCREASES, exponentially in effectiveness. A decrease in distance, between the two sample objects in Newton's equation, say Earth and Sun, spontaneously generates a geometric increase in the number of effective thread like EM helices connecting all the atoms of these two objects. The M1 and M2 in Newton's equation represent the number of potential connections. When Earth and Sun are theoretically separated at great distances, beyond the inverse square regime, the nudging between the two is unidirectional and this would perhaps almost be the same between Earth and a star in Andromeda. Ineffective in terms of the concept of gravity, but effective in terms of inertia. When the two stars come close enough, many pairs of atoms are in a sideways tension with one another at various angles. The tension is multi-directional, a sideways tension from multiple locations. Effective. The 'innate resistive forces' are happening at various angles between the two objects considered in the equation and used for explanation. The net effect of local tension (gravity) is as if objects are being pulled straight down toward one another, but in statement in fact in assumption, an astronomical object like Earth or Sun would have effective EM ropes from multiple locations opposite the target object considered. Many pair of atoms between these two objects are in tension with one another at various angles. The closer they are the steeper the angles of many atoms nudging on one another.
We can use this assumption that all the atoms of the Universe are connected by an double helix EM thread to make manifest and define inertial mass so that this concept is crisp, clear and used consistently in all physical contexts. For example we could use this definition in context to Einstein's equation. That equation seems to tell us that inertial mass is inseparable from the work of light because we have c squared on the right side of the equation with m. Atoms constantly flickering light signals to and from all atoms via the fundamental physical mediator of light (which connects all atoms) maintains this bi-directional tension necessary to explain inertia. This bi-directional tension maintained by the atom's constant work of light (or radiation) obeys Newton's action-reaction principle. For every radiation the atom performs there is an equal and opposite reaction. From here we could get into Mach's principle.
E on the left side of Einstein's equation refers to an atom's capacity to do the work of light. All E does is calculate an object's capacity to do the work of light, specifically receive and send off light signals. What is interesting is that the more resistance an object has to being pushed or pulled is proportional to that object's capacity to do the work of light. An exponential increase in an object's 'Energy' or capacity to do the work of light seems to imply that that object has more fundamental and permanent connections to all the atoms of the Universe. So a Caesium atom has more fundamental and permanent connections to all the atoms of the Universe than a Hydrogen atom.
Matter is an ill-defined concept come out of Greece.
We could define it as the set of objects, or the set of existing objects.
The fundamental unit of matter is the atom, but there also seems to be an object that is more fundamental connecting all atoms and from which all atoms are derived. This is an EM Rope or double helix thread. This object is inseparable to all the base hydrogen atoms (or protons), or in other words the proton assumes its Form or derives its From from this fundamental object.
Object refers to that which has Form
Exist refers to that which has Form and location OR simply that which stands out. Atoms and the fundamental object connecting all atoms exists in spite of the fact that the features of the atom (e.g. proton, electron, neutron) as well as the fundamental object has unique properties, such as the ability to superpose, overlap or intersect to a critical density or critical anomaly which initiates fundamental interactions (such as light, push, pull, etc.).
Mass (Inertial) refers to an an object's resistance to being pushed or pulled by objects in its close vicinity.
Energy refers to an object's capacity to do work (in Einstein's equation the work referred to is distinctly the work of light or radiation)
We are taught that light obeys the inverse square law. Has anyone ever bothered answering HOW or WHY? The Inverse Square Law for Light is perhaps solved by the assumption that all the atoms of the Universe are physically connected by a fundamental double helix EM Thread that mediates light signals. Lets see if I can give a little manifestation of this descriptive law.
The law for light could be stated as follows:
The intensity (or illuminance or irradiance) of light from a point source is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source; so an imaginary object (of the same size) twice as far away, receives only one-quarter the energy.
The point source could be an atom or a star. Every single atom of the Universe is connected to that object that serves as the point source, whether atom or star via a twined and taut electromagnetic thread emanating rectilinearly, or orthogonally from that source to all atoms. The total potential energy of that point source is basically proportional to the number of atoms, i.e. number of atoms in the star or light bulb, etc. For one atom, the potential is derived from that atom's fundamental and permanent connection to all atoms of the Universe via this double helical thread by which the atom constantly torques light signals of all and various frequencies (or link lengths) to all atoms. If we consider one atom, or one star, with decreasing distance we find that all of these 'EM Ropes' converge upon it from all other atoms, hence more capacity in the work of light per conceptual unit area. Inversely with increasing distance from the atom all of these 'EM Ropes' spread out to all other atoms, hence less capacity in the work of light per unit area.
Since, at least, from our galactic neighborhood it seems that all atoms of the Universe are for all practical purposes distributed evenly on the largest scales . . . as we conceptually relate further and further away from that source object the double helical EM Threads, signalling light, emerge out of superposition on course to all other atoms. The closer we get to that source the double helical EM Threads begin to converge upon the source object, thus intensifying the light capacitance per unit area. For unit area we could imagine placing an object the same size as the unit area so AS IF to intercept the light signals propagating to atoms across the Universe. Below, the total number of EM Ropes frequenting light signals per unit area is our Intensity in the equation E = I/r2. For light energy is proportional to frequency.
Point sources are always idealized. Energy quantities vary. Lets do an idealized thought experiment. Lets say that a hydrogen atom is our point source. And lets just say that there are 1 * 10 to the 90 H atoms in our Universe. And let’s just say that this hydrogen atom’s electron or set of electron threads faces a third of the hydrogen atoms of the Universe. This electron will frequents light signals to all of these atoms via the EM Ropes converging and superposing with that electron. The EM Ropes have a capacity to mediate light at any and all frequencies. They will represent our I (intensity at the surface of a sphere or per unit area). The electron flickers sending a set of signals to 1 * 10 to the 30 H atoms.
At 1 kilometer (r) we find the unit area (A) where there is still 1 * 10 to the 30 EM Ropes (I). Twice that distance, 2 kilometers (2r) there will be a fourth of the EM Ropes per unit area. So in each quarter area we should find about 2.5 * 10 to the 29 EM Ropes (give or take if the atoms of the Universe are distributed slightly anisotropically). Three times that distance, 3 kilometers (3r) there will be a ninth of the EM Ropes per unit area. And so on. Why? Because the EM Ropes originating in that H atom 'fan out' of superposition in decreasing sets, with increasing distance, in their nexus to all the atoms of all the stars of the galaxies toward which the electron points.
Eventually, we see that at 1* 10 to the 15 kilometers a there will be single EM Rope per unit area originating in the source object. The distance would of this single EM Rope per unit area would begin at a little over a light year. So at about 1 light year we have EM Ropes originating in that H atom distributed more or less evenly in an enormous imaginary arc of the sky. They will no longer fan out of superposition. They will all be distinctly signaling their target atoms without interference. However if the assumption is sound, all these EM Ropes should eventually end on an atom somewhere across the Universe. The closer they get to their target atom connecting it to the 'point' source the more EM Ropes they will converge with from all other atoms of the Universe.
At some distance all of these EM Ropes will have ended on atoms or stars, so we will have 0 EM Ropes per unit area at a distance (Xr). All EM Ropes and atoms will eventually end and there will be nothing.
Now if we enter a star into the equation as the point source . . . something opposite will happen. With increasing distance we will get every single H atom of the star to superpose their EM Ropes connecting them all to one lone Hydrogen atom somewhere out there across the Universe. So we will get a Bird Beak structure of EM Ropes emerging from the star. The Earth is bathed in these extraneous EM Ropes which do not end on the Earth. And so perhaps we can call these neutrinos. These should converge by about 1 light year in the direction toward their target atom. And again with decreasing distance toward the target atom all those highways of light will 'fan out of superposition' in sets with decreasing distance and connect their target atom.
There is also an inverse square law for electrostatics. I imagine that the law can be explained using the supposed helical electron threads which twist out of the proton or nucleus in a similar manner than that of the double helix EM Thread. Electrical influence and capacity decreases per unit area with increasing distance away from the nucleus. Only these tend to be much shorter, so the distances and scales would be extremely tiny.
