I looked to see if anything like this was asked, but can’t find.

So a star is formed, the sun for instance., and creates a gravitational force on its own. After a billion years a kuiper belt surrounds the sun in a very very distant gravitational orbit, like our own solar system. But somehow the gravity seeks out the largest asteroid, of rock and begins to pull it from the kipper belt slowly, I mean really slowly, toward the sun. Like our own solar system. After the largest rock is pulled in another rock or rocks is pulled in and slowly forms a large planet that smooths into a sphere over time. After another half billion years maybe, the planet is huge from absorbing all the matter floating around it. And also is closer to the star or sun it orbits. Of course another celestial body is being formed at the same time. A million or more miles behind it.

After a while comets have crashed into it to provide an atmosphere. And so this is a theory of the creation of life in the the solar system. But instead of having an end, or the star burning out, what happens is eventually the planet gets too close to the sun and the atmosphere is burned away and hurdled back into the freezing space to eventually re accumulate and form another comet. The planet that gets too close to the sun will eventually be absorbed by the sun and will create a special type of miniature supernova that may or may not reset most life at the next inhabited planet, perhaps a possible extinction method, ie. Dinosaurs. But will replenish the suns matter for fuel. Where a planet is turned into fission or fusion or whatever that is. Kind of like the movie “sunshine” but with a planet. Any way, in this world this is the pattern, almost perpetual, except for one problem, where do I get an endless supply of kuiper belt material? If the comets can move around by being burned off of planets or knocked off by collisions, and the matter, or planets, are turned into fuel eventually when it hits the sun, how do I replenish my kipper belt?

I could theorize that somehow the energy from the sun, or its photons, as neutrinos or something, has some kind of atomic weight to it that is lost if they crash into other elements or as it leaves the gravity of the sun and turns to stone. I guess that is a possibility. Any other ways?

Probably not a reliable source of matter to bring in from distant space. And the matter cannot just be endless

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ A kipper is small smoked pickled herring. The name of the astronomer was Gerard Kuiper. Ah, and the mass of all the other objects in the solar system (planets, moons, asteroids, Kuiper belt objects, etc.) is neglijible (less than one sixth of one percent) compared to the mass of the Sun. $\endgroup$ – AlexP Dec 11 '18 at 21:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ According to modern star and planet formation theory, a newly formed star does not clear its vicinity from dust and gas, and planetesimals are formed around it at the same time as the star is being formed. This means that it's unlikely to have a Kuiper belt without inner planets already in place. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Dec 11 '18 at 21:58
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Orbital mechanics don't work that way. Gravity doesn't pull things from stable orbits. It's possible for a Kuiper Belt object to be knocked out of orbit and enter the inner Solar System, but it will be on an extremely elliptical orbit and will go through the inner Solar System very fast and head back out again, not coming back for a very long time. $\endgroup$ – David Thornley Dec 11 '18 at 22:33
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Probably more important: what are you asking? You're describing a theory of solar system formation and destruction that is incompatible with basic physics, asking questions about it, and tagging it "science-based". If you're going to make up vastly different laws of physics, don't call it science-based, and don't ask questions that we can't possibly answer. If you're wondering how solar systems could form, try astronomy.stackexchange.com $\endgroup$ – David Thornley Dec 11 '18 at 22:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Planets are so much smaller than a star that a planet being pulled into its sun could not "replenish" its supply of fuel, even if it were made out of the right materials for that to be plausible. $\endgroup$ – jdunlop Dec 11 '18 at 22:38

Everything is different

I hope you are aware you are going against the protoplanetary disk theory, and in doing so you are also against the idea that stars with planets are usually second generation stars if not third generation stars.

Also, know that in our universe as we know it, the stars cannot fuse past iron, and that the heavier the materials are the less useful are as fuel for stars. Your world will require alternative explanations for how stars work, their life cycle, and probably alternative nuclear physics to go with it.

There are plenty of macroscopic phenomena that are only truly explained with quantum physics. Starting from black-body radiation (i.e. heat propagation, the colors of fire and hot glow, spectroscopy, fluorescent lights et al) and many other things (photoelectric effect, light as chemical catalyst, semiconductors, etc.). In a universe where stars are sustained by heavy elements, all of the the above are probably different.

My first intuition is that these stars do not operate on fusion, but on fission. That is, they do not release energy by merging atoms, but by breaking them apart. These stars would be very dense, and we need them to not become black holes... so there goes relativity too.

Endless matter?

Not necessarily. You do not need an endless supply of matter, the universe could run out of useful material and pass to a different cosmic age. It would be in a time scale too large for most stories set in that universe, however.

I suspect your universe would not have a big bang either, at least not as we understand it, because we would require the cosmic inception to create heavy matter.

With that said, the mass broken down in the stars would be emitted back out as radiation. If you can have a secondary mechanism to turn it to mass, it could feedback. I would suggest that you say that the massive bodies outside of the influence of the star absorb it.

Now, if you really want an endless source of matter, just make it so. There is no reason to think the suggested universe is expanding, you could have an infinite universe, but one in which gravity is winning, pulling stuff from beyond the cosmic horizon to feed the stars. And it will not run out, simply because the universe goes on forever. I would not expect galaxies in this version, by the way, instead a more or less homogeneous patch of stars and other objects without greater structures.

  • $\begingroup$ I appreciate your answer. I kind of want to focus on the idea of neutrinos or some other photon matter having weight and perhaps being a source of dark matter or elements when it is lost which creates some other mechanism. $\endgroup$ – Robus Dec 11 '18 at 22:06
  • $\begingroup$ I could also imagine both fission and fusion taking place at different intervals of the star devouring a planet. $\endgroup$ – Robus Dec 11 '18 at 22:10
  • $\begingroup$ @Robus neutrinos have mass, very tiny. I do not see how that helps. If you give mass to photons, they would not move at the speed of massless objects... however, perhaps there is cosmic speed limit in your universe, that goes well with not having black holes. Stars that have fusion and fission periods sounds like a good start to develop their life cycle. $\endgroup$ – Theraot Dec 11 '18 at 22:16
  • $\begingroup$ It is not a universe it is a solar system. $\endgroup$ – Robus Dec 11 '18 at 22:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Robus are you telling me that you want physics to be exactly as we know it? If that is the case, then I would go on a hard no. What you describe would not work. If you can set up the condition for this solar system to work (which I do not think it can be done, your star will just implode - addendum: that means supernova, that is what happens when the star cannot sustain fission to combat gravity) then you need to explain why it does not happen the same way everywhere in the universe. $\endgroup$ – Theraot Dec 11 '18 at 22:23

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.