The International Astronomical Union (IAU) with headquarters in France is the presiding body with world authority to proclaim on astronomical breakthroughs made from time to time in the west. Their most recent resolution was the removal of Pluto from the codification of planets. The elements of applying science behind this tenacity are not the forum to be debated in this research paper because such an attempt may necessarily accentuate on conformation with the resolution taken and the elements of applying science therein resulting nothing to debate on governing principles of the thesis, the main contention of this research paper. Therefore let me go into the second part of the contention i.e. the emergence of celestial bodies in context of Quantum Dynamical Evolution Theory of Sanathdeva Murutenge abbreviated QDE Theory. 

According to QDE Theory, a planet or a celestial body is defined as an impetuously evolved mass of energy bodies gravitationally confined with its energy conserved in trillions of zero determinants and taking an inconceivably long space of time, an aeon. The theory also states that this whole astronomical phenomenon takes place with the distortion of a four dimensional space-time continuum by gravitational field. In this situation the space and the time are not two separate entities; only their fusion can claim some sort of condition which mimics existence. If we take this fact into consideration and draw an imaginary line where it exists, the result is going to be an elliptical orbit due to the four dimensional pulling of inertial mass. Here the four dimensional space-time continuum is distorted in the presence of matter with no radiation. Under these circumstances the time as an index of contriving the exact duration of this astronomical process becomes futile. If I am to say this in simple English, “the age of an astronomical object cannot be found by any method” – (See – Murutenge Sanathdeva, P.M., Quantum Dynamical Evolution Theory of Sanathdeva Murutenge: A Paradigm Shift to Theories of Modern Physics,the theory of everything, pp. 22-23, Author Publication 2008, 2nd Ed. 2012 Sooriya Publishers). I must emphasize at this stage that the above exposition is defensible only for a viable or living planet, for example the earth. In the case of a dead planet viz. sun, moon or any other planet other than earth, the above definition takes on a reverse process. Here the absenteeism of gravitational pull and conservation of energy are the two major facets that differ from the above exposition. 

Now with this fundamental knowledge of astrophysics depicted in QDE Theory let us go back to the proclamation of International Astronomical Union (IAU) regarding a planet. According to IAU definition a celestial body that is in orbit around the sun and has sufficient mass for itself-gravity to overcome rigid body forces to assume a hydrostatic equilibrium shape and has cleared the locality around its orbit is a planet. In compliance with this definition there are eight planets in our solar system. 

In the aftermath of this 2006 convention of the IAU there had been a lot of controversies in coming to an irrefutable settlement on this argument and even today a considerable number of astronomers throughout the world have declined to comply with IAU definition. When you look at the IAU definition, the first thing that comes into your mind is that it doesn’t say anything about the contrast between viable and dead planets. It does mention a quality called self-gravity thus giving an insinuation to us that the content pertains to a living planet. Therefore with no reference to a dead planet, the IAU definition is incomplete in its content. The other striking facet of the IAU definition is that it refers to an orbit around the sun without explaining what an orbit is. On the other hand the final statement of IAU definition says that it has cleared the locality around its orbit in which case it is highly ambiguous in recital. This statement of clearing the locality around its orbit cannot be explicated by any of the foundational principles of theoretical astrophysics governing the existence of the physical universe. Whether this clearing is neither empty space nor something else is not at all clear. I see these points as major drawbacks in IAU proclamation. Now the reader may have got an idea about the imperfections of IAU definition to a certain extent. 

Before going into real elements of the first part of the contention we must clarify for sure what an orbit is. In the existing knowledge base of physics, an orbit is defined as the gravitationally curved path of one object around a point or another body. The best example the physicists entrust for this is the gravitational orbit of a planet. By looking at this definition anybody can come to a conclusion that an orbit is only a trajectory because it is the path that an object moves under the influence of gravitational force. When you go back again to the original IAU definition which says about a locality that has been cleared around this path, then it becomes more and more enigmatic in interpretation because again it highlights an idea to us that this path goes through an empty space. One can argue with me that the word “clearance” means devoid of any other entities near this path. But still with all these expositions in hand many arguments can be raised against this definition and the current global understanding of what an orbit is in the context of available literature of astrophysics is not at all at the conclusive proclamatory stage. 

Now with this background scholarship in hand let me take you back to the QDE Theory where the fundamentals of astrophysics are well formulated. In conformity with this theory, an area of singular matrix having the four fundamental forces of universe enforced in various degrees and takes a hydrostatic equilibrium conformation around any viable celestial body in which an object moves on angular momentum or acceleration is considered as the orbit of that particular viable celestial body. Therefore according to QDE Theory an orbit is an established medium in space (cosmic space) found around a viable planet. At this juncture I must confidently say that the planet called earth is the only planet in our galaxy which exhibits an orbital hydrostatic equilibrium conformation around it by way of a singular matrix. The QDE Theory fully substantiates this astrophysical proclamation. 

At the onset of this research paper I mentioned that a planet is an impetuously evolved mass of energy bodies. According to QDE Theory these energy bodies are called Quaternion atoms evolved as a result of high-energy particles striking in the interstellar space in the absence of other domains of physics. In compliance with QDE Theory, the non-existence of an established medium is called the interstellar space. The neutron radiation coupled with the magnetic moment of other radiating dead planets of the galaxy is the principal source of these high-energy particles that give rise to huge bodies of celestial origin. As a result when one planet starts getting annihilated in the galaxy the remnants of this planet contributes to the organization of another planet in the same galaxy. This astronomical phenomenon of cause and effect is called the dependent origination of cosmos which is well expounded in eastern advanced philosophical systems of the world. According to this universal law of nature we cannot find the extent of the cosmos for certainty. Therefore the universe is space and it is boundless. The only existing phenomenon of this boundless space is motion of high-energy particles. The phenomenon of motion is time dependent. When these two notions of space and time are fused together an entity called mass is organized as a celestial body in the cosmos and in the process of condensation it gets transposed into a gravitationally confined huge spherical object called a planet. When you go back to the intrinsic level of this planet what you get is the Quaternion atomic model of QDE Theory having two component notions viz. vector and scalar. In the process of condensation, the trillions of such atomic models get converted to matter due to the symmetry property of the wave function. When the midpoint inter-atomic distance becomes smaller to bring atomic particles into thermal equilibrium with their surroundings, the symmetry property of the wave function inspires them to occupy the lowest energy state with the conservation of energy at its core as thermal energy (heat). Therefore the impetuously evolved celestial mass of the cosmos and the surrounding orbit are not two separate entities. The two entities are amalgamated to form a coordinate system with an interface point. The output of this coordinate system is the orbit made of a singular matrix with trillions of zero determinants embedded throughout the matrix. The late professor Albert Einstein coined these central vacuous areas as cosmological constants. The input of this coordinate system is the celestial mass called a planet. The escalation of thermal energy by way of heat in the core of this planet is a derivative of what happens in the perimeter orbit of the coordinate system. 

Now let us harness our attention on to what happens in the perimeter orbit. The radiation of dead planets in the galaxy by way of neutrons increases the magnitude of cosmological constant in the perimeter orbit of the coordinate system. This increase of magnitude has a direct effect on the other side of the interface point which is the input of the coordinate system by way of escalating its thermal energy in order to bring the constituent atomic particles into thermal equilibrium with the surrounding perimeter orbit. With this thermodynamics in operation the whole coordinate system works as an entropy which is an irreversible process tending to increase towards a maximum, corresponding to complete disorder of the particles in it. According to the second law of thermodynamics this can be interpreted to mean that the entropy of a closed system tends towards a maximum and that of its available conserved energy tends towards a minimum. Therefore the destruction of entropy is always an intrinsic process and the destruction of any planet in our galaxy is also an intrinsic process. According to the fundamental principles of astrophysics depicted in this research paper there can’t be some external object by way of an asteroid hitting the earth and destroying it. The proclamation of a possibility of an asteroid hitting the earth by some scientists at the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is a biggest theoretical mistake done in this field of study. The QDE Theory fully substantiates that the planet earth and its surrounding orbit is a thermodynamically closed system and in time to come there won’t be any energy available for use. This can be explained as the natural heat death of the planet called earth. 

Now with all these fundamental astrophysical enlightenment in hand let me take your concentration on asteroids, the next consequential facet of my contention in this paper. According to IAU definition asteroids are small solar system bodies in orbit around the sun especially in the inner solar systems which are smaller than planets and larger than meteorites. In this statement of meaning, the first to strike our minds is, an orbit around the sun. According to the fundamental principles of astrophysics depicted in QDE Theory and the sun being a dead planet of our galaxy, there can’t be an established medium around the sun. Therefore quoting the IAU definition which says that an asteroid is a small solar system body in orbit around the sun cannot be acknowledged as a true statement. The next important point of IAU definition is that it talks about an inner-solar system where the asteroids are located. The astronomers explicate this as the region comprising the terrestrial planets (earth like) and asteroids. The QDE Theory depicts this as the interstellar space where this whole astronomical phenomenon takes place. Therefore an asteroid is a gravitationally confined celestial body in evolution with a hydrostatic equilibrium conformation. The word “aster” means poor quality and “oid” means resemblance and as the name implies asteroid is a not well established (poor quality) celestial body that resembles a planet. The hydrostatic equilibrium conformation is an important point in this definition because this has been well explained in QDE Theory. The squire matrix configuration in singularity when condensation taking place and the definite geometrical shape of constituent particles explicated in this theory are the two main reasons for the hydrostatic equilibrium conformation. This is the general order applicable to any celestial evolution in the interstellar space. The documentation of S-Type asteroids viz. 243 Ida and 433 Eros and C-Type asteroid of 253 Mathilde which do not come under this explanation have to be debated again in-depth in the next IAU sponsored Asteroids Comets Meteors (ACM) meeting of international scientists which is going to be held in 2011 in Niigata, Japan. 

According to the basic astrophysical principles expounded in this research paper a comet is a subtle plan of a planet. 

Now the last facet to be expounded in this research paper is the meteorite which is also called as sand to boulder sized particles of debris in the solar system by the scientists. The word “debris” is very important here in which I am going to explain why it is so in the course of this final explanation. The current IAU official definition of a meteorite is, “a solid object moving in interplanetary space, of a size considerably smaller than an asteroid and considerably larger than an atom”. With what have been expounded so far in this paper a reader with an advanced knowledge of fundamental astrophysics will be able to fathom the mechanics of organization of a meteorite by now. Therefore I do not intend to repeat what has been discussed earlier. In abstract, meteorites are formed in the outermost perimeter orbit (ionosphere) of the earth due to the radiation of neutrons battering resulting in an electrical phenomenon in constituent particles of Quaternion atoms formed with no distortion of space-time continuum. Owing to the fact that there is no distortion of the space-time continuum, the evolved object of mass does not exhibit the usual hydrostatics equilibrium conformation. Due to this very same reason these objects can be formed in any shape. Once the centripetal force is lost due to disruption of the mutual gravitational field of earth and the meteorite, it gets pulled down towards the earth in this established medium. This is why it is called colloquially a shooting star or a falling star. 

Now let us go back to the IAU definition of a meteorite which says that it is a solid object  moving in interplanetary space. According to QDE Theory, interplanetary space is defined as the area of space found between planets and is called the interstellar space. Any celestial evolution in this region invariably gets its space-time continuum distorted resulting in a hydrostatic equilibrium conformation. But the fundamentals of astrophysics governing the emergence of a meteorite does not exhibit this owing to the fact that it is formed in an established medium called the cosmic space i.e. the perimeter orbit of the earth with no distortion of space-time continuum. Therefore in this context the current IAU official definition is imprecise. A meteorite is called a  debris in the solar system by scientists because of the very same reason for its emergence with an uneven shape resembling a scattered fragment of something wrecked or destroyed. 

For completeness of this research paper I would like to quote the proposed new definition of Royal Astronomical Society which states that a meteorite is between 100 micrometers and 10 meters across. The Near Earth Objects (NEO) definition admits objects up to 50 meters in diameters in this classification. But the reader should understand that these data are of no use without proper explications of fundamental principles governing the emergence of these celestial bodies in the cosmos. 

As a concluding remark I should say that I did this research paper with the little knowledge  I had  in this field of study. Now it is for the international community of astronomical scientists to decide whether I have contributed anything worth to the advancement of this argument. 

Special Note – 

The constructive criticisms of this work as well as in preceded works of mine published in this website are of no way have any sort of discrediting or detrimental viewpoint towards any of the works done by US and European governments sponsored nuclear and space research programs. The references made are purely based on good optimism for the mutual benefit, overall understanding and advancement of these fields of study. I always value and honor the industrious tasks accomplished by US and European organizations in nuclear and space research programs for the betterment of mankind – Sanathdeva Murutenge 

Sources – 

1. Murutenge, Sanathdeva, P.M., Quantum Dynamical Evolution Theory of Sanathdeva Murutenge: A Paradigm Shift to Theories of Modern Physics, the theory of everything, Author Publication 2008, Dehiwala, Sri Lanka. ISBN 978-955-97940-2-8. 
2. Murutenge, Sanathdeva, P.M., Quantum Dynamical Evolution Theory and the Physical Mechanism Behind Gravity: The Grand Unified Theory that Explains the Four Fundamental Forces of Universe, 10th September 2009, www.quantumpsychophysical.com, Sri Lanka.
3. Murutenge, Sanathdeva, P.M., Quantum Dynamical Evolution Theory and the Beyond Orbit Space Travel by MAN: The Factual Theoretical Axioms behind 1969 Apollo – 11 Mission to the Moon, 14th December 2009, www.quantumpsychophysical.com, Sri Lanka. 
4. Fermi, Enrico, Thermodynamics, Dover Publication, ISBN 048660361X
5. Yuan, S.W., Foundations of Fluid Mechanics, 1969, Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi.
6. Hazeltine, R.D., Meiss, J.D., Plasma Confinement, 1992, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, CA. 
7. kibble, T.W.B., Classical Mechanics, 1966, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, London. 
8. Moulton, Forest Ray, Astronomy, 1931, The Macmillan Company, New York.
9. Hoyle, Fred, Frontiers of Astronomy, 1956, William Heinemann LTD, London.
10. Hoyle, Fred, The Nature of the Universe, Reprint 1968, Pelican Books, Great Britain. 

Share this post: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+